All over the internet, the popular discussion of the day, seems to be President Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor. If approved she would be the first Hispanic and the third woman appointed. The appointment which was supposed to galvanize Republicans in opposition has instead once again turned the party into a circular firing squad with contradicting messages.
First off, there’s GOP spokesman Michael Steele suggests restraint to avoid the appearance of anti-Latino sentiment. Then there’s Rush Limbaugh’s comments claiming ‘reverse racism’. I don’t know how Republicans could object to her, she’s been voted on twice by the Senate. She was originally nominated by George Herbert Walker Bush. It just seems that this going to be a ‘win’ for Obama and objections by Republicans will prove futile. Sometimes you have to pick your battles and barring any explosive new, previously undiscovered vetting material; it appears to be a solid nomination that will gain approval.
I’ve read Sotomayor’s ‘controversial’ comments which reminds me of statements by Sandra Day O’Connor’s concerning her disappointment at not being replaced by a woman. We don’t want activist judges. But remember judges issue ‘opinions’. They obviously have differing and dissenting viewpoints which must be based on something other than straight facts and the law. So it seems rather naive to expect that a person’s life experiences would somehow not influence their decision making process.
Rick, I think you just proved my point. While you and I feel Brown vs Bd of Ed is reasonable based on the Bill of Rights, many many people did not. When I was a kid, you would see signs all over the south saying Impeach Earl Warren. Schools were closed in 4 localities in Virginia. Only one closure was Virginia was because the jurisdiction decided to close. The rest were closed by the State Legislature in Richmond.
As for Roe, I don’t think we need a patchwork of laws varying from state to state. Those who don’t like it, feel it was judicial activism. Those who do feel it was a justifiable decision.
Moon, here is the issue, I originally said my comments to the blog at large #17. I almost always do this because it is not my goal to antagonize individuals, simply to educate. I fact I was complimenting Alanna and Elena on their judgement of Sonia. You will note that you took my comments personally and made it personal #20 (as you usually do.)
In the first place I was not taking about you in my comments about Sonia, but YOU took it upon yourself to attack me first, that I said you were off base. I said “many” were off base and you assumed I was talking about you.
This is what then starts my defense of my statemets because you make it personal with me.
@Moon-howler
Thanks for the definition, MH! That helped.
Moon, during your lifetime the playing field has been leveled in the only way it can be. The government change the law and continues to drive policy to ensure that no individual is discrimminated against male or female in a job, education or equal opportunity.
The Supreme Court ruled on the law changes and admissions offices policy constitutionality when admissions offices took it too far and began a “diversity program” to ensure more females and more foreigners were admitted into universities than white males, with equivalent GPAs and SAT scores. Those people sued, and the supreme court upheld they were discrimminated against.
Now everyone needs to understand that the playing field is indeed “level” because diversity which is “code” for increasing the numbers of minorities and females as admissions quotas is now illegal.
What the court ruled is that “Equal opportunity is guaranteed”, whichn means that all “individuals are to be treated the same regardless of their race, gender, religion or ethnicity. (This is why you hear this so much elena, because people are still trying to racially balance the minority numbers in their favor, while discrimminating against majorities.).
The other think the supreme court ruled was that “equal outcome was NOT guaranteed”, because you cannot legally balance “numbers and quotas based on numbers of people belonging to a specific race, gender, religion or ethnicity as a meand to achieve “diversity or inclusion” because one from each race, gender, religion or ethnicity, giving minority representations, and the small populations of minority representations, discrimminates against all other individuals who belong to racial, gender, religious or ethnic groups with large populations, unfairly, unequitably and without “individual competition” based only on RACE, GENDER, RELIGION or ETHNICITY.
“Diversity” and “inclusion” and the “Liberal” people who support it keep trying to discrimminate against other individuals with better qualifications, grades, skills and abilities.
So though you don’t see it in your personal life, the field is indeed level and has been for some time now, certainly before this current generation has applied for school and applied for jobs, and applies when you and I apply for work or SCHOOL TODAY. I compete with you and you compete with me as an individual, and you don’t get extra credit for being female, and I don’t get extra credit for being a white male.
Moon I could say you are a malogynist or hater of men. Would that accomplish anything? See you are mad because I’ve told you all kinds of ways that women have discrimminated against men, and made their lives misreable, and when any man tries to defend himnself from the abuse, and you don’t like it, won’t listen to it and don’t want to accept the truth of it, you call men “misogynist” and grossly misuse the term as a hate term.
See the word “misogynist” was used by women of the 60s to point out the aggressive actions of men trying to suppress them and described the abuse that men gave women.
I have not abused any women, nor done any of the things men did in the past. What you don’t like is that now I’m calling out the abuse by women against men, and using the term “malogyny” to describe that illegal and malicious abuse and oppression.
Until both sexes stop the abuse and oppression of the other sex, then we are not equal. I am simply standing up for my right and legal entitlement to define what is “abuse” of me and my male companions.
You obviously don’t like me to protect myself, so you resort to offensive name calling, because you can’t deal with it.
Elena, it may be boring and old, but just like female activists of the 60s and 70s, male activists of the 90s and 2000’s are making sure everyone understand what is equal and what is not, what is legal and what is not and what is abuse of individuals and what is not.
Until All people on this blog can treat races, genders, religions and ethnicities as “equal” individuals, without preference, favortism, discrimmination, prejudice and malicious hatred, I will continue to “cut and past it into every instance I see “fairness and equity” being ignored or “diversity” and “inclusion” used as a political tool to gain power over “individuals” and others by racial, gender, religious and ethnicity group means.
Hey, Michael, it’s time for an anatomy lesson, since you keep bringing up the “female knee” thing that bothers you so much. I know, off topic, but I have seen Michael mention this one too many times and it’s time to get rid of this one irritant).
When men stand, their legs, hips and feet essentially form a rectangle, which distributes forces evenly on the legs, so that when they run, for example, there is less likely to be torsion (twisting) on the knees.
I don’t think it’s misogynistic to say that women have wider hips than men. So if you think about it, from hips to feet they essentially form a triangle with the ground, with the downward forces going inward and causing torsion (twist) to the knees. So the billboard about “the female knee” is in no way misogynistic or gender biased. It is a simple anatomical fact that women are more prone to torsion knee injuries than men, and prevention and treatment will definitely differ.
Man, I am SO glad I finally got that off my chest. It’s tough to be a triangle.
Pinko, lets assume you are trying to intelligently debate here…
Do customs and cultures legally allow anyone to discrimminate, prejudice, or privilige?
The answer is no, in fact customs and cultures usually encourage a “group” to discrimminate, prejudice, and privilige. That is what White people did in the 60s, and minority activist groups who are pushing “diversity” and “inclusion” and racial/ethnic/gender superiority and pride are doing now.
So how do you stop it, like the case of the BOCS? You make sure the BOCS was not discrimminating according to the law, and that it can only make policy and legal rulings that affect all individuals the same under the law. “equal justice for all under the law”.. It’s the “under the law” part that people who support “illegal” immigrants and foreigners want to forget.
This is what Sonia will concentrate on, and not on her customs and culture to determine how to dole out justice to both good people and bad people. I get the sense, you don’t want her to uphold the law the same on everyone, but that is exactly what the BOCS did, the law as written in both resolutions was applied equally to all. Racism never entered the picture until pro-illegal immigrant activists wanted the issue to be defined in terms of race, so they could create a false claim of racial profiling, in order to prevent people who are illegal from being discovered when they were pulled over at a traffic stop. This is essentially supporting evasion of the law, again something Sonia will come down very HARD on “on the side of the law” if a case like “illegal” alien evasion of the law is brought before the court she and the 8 other justices preside over it.
Emma, cool your jets, I’m not saying that women are not built differently. What pisses me off is that Prince William Hospital advertizes that they specialize in female knee joint replacement, using female doctors and imply that women are somehow more deserving of a specific advertisement than men who also need the procedure just as much if not more, due to sports injuries.
The fair and equal treatment of this issue is to advertise that either BOTH sexes are equally covered, or you don’t mention sex at all, simply that you have experts that do knee replacement, and those experts are “doctors” not “female doctors who are better doctors than male doctors for female knee, or heart surgury” such obvious “malogyny” is infuriating to men who see they are not given equitable treatment.
The same is true for “race for the cure”, which never advertises that it needs money to fight “prostrate cancer” even though it is the major killer of males. Why not use white ribbons instead of pink ribbons, and make the race for all forms of cancer, not just breast cancer… Why? because their are haters of men at the hospital advertising staff and haters of men as executive officers of the Susan G. Koman foundation.
I’m simply advocating for EQUALITY, and pointing out that is does not exist here, not trying to bash women foir having a different shape knee.
Use some brains here people…look at it from a purely “individual rights” perspective. “individual rights demands all people be treated equally in all issues regarding race, gender, religion and ethnicity (disability and marital preference as well).
And before anyone fires, I acknowlledge and agreee women have sports injuries, but I insist that they both deserve equal treament, sympathy, compassion and assistance.
Michael, do you feel discriminated against because of the existence of ob-gyns, who care exclusively for women? Shall we just do away with all “gender-based” specialties?
As long as I am foolishly engaging in this inane discussion, feel free to have a pap smear and a mammogram, Michael, so that you can be “equally covered.” Let us know how it turned out for you.
Well emma, by your logic we should refuse to have “male anatomy” clinics that look specifically at male anatomy care, but only care for female anatomy with special and expensive equipment. But hey as a male I’m willing to give that up because very few doctors want to specifically get into the practice of taking care of only male anatomy parts in a private clinic only for male customers. To show you how oblivious you are to the importance society places on my anatomy, and far less equal dollars and specialized equipment goes into it from the government or from private industry, than into mammograms, or pap smears.
See I have this thing called a prostrate. I don’t get an opprotunity or support to ensure I have an x-ray every year to check if I might have this deadly cancer, and its incidance rate among men is almost as high as breast cancer is for women, and if I remeber my statistics, it is a higher incidence than ovarian cancer. I don’t get special money from the government dedicated to curing this deadly cancer that affects males. I also don’t get special funding and special advertisement that focusses on male death by coronary heart disease, of which MOST of us die from far earlier than a woman does. See women don’t value my life enough to share that federal funding, or that federal advertisement to help save my life and ensure I live as long as you do.
So YES I do feel discrimminated against, and YES you don’t give a damn about my cancer probabilities, AND THE FACT THAT MALES DIE 5 YEARS YOUNgER THAN FEMALES, BUT STILL DON’T HAVE SPECIAL MALE PHYSIOLOGY CLINICS TO PREVENT ME FROM DYING EARLIER THAN YOU.
Like I said the medical world does not treat male and female deaths equally, especially when it comes to government grants and disease research.
Then there is the issue that I’m tired of hearing… Female docters are better for females than male doctors. That is crap and discrimminates agaist male physicians. I have no problem with a female doctor doing my anatomy screening.. and feel that both my male doctors and female doctors are EQUALLY qualified to do it. Your anatomy and hormones are no more complicated and differ so little from mine from a purely medical perspective, only in “function” and not in “science” that it does not take a lot of training to understand either anotomical system.
Now brain surgery, that is complicated… Funny we are now having cardiac doctors that specialize in female hearts only. Why tdo they do this, so they can raise prices and make more money by scaring all of you into thinking your heart is more special than mine, yet mine typically fails 5 to 10 years earlier than yours.
You bet I feel discrimminated agaist, and I am a male activist trying to get the world to stop abusing me and ignoring my needs, and needs for government research and funding in favor of yours.
You would have to lie face down to have “prostrate” cancer, Michael.
That being said, let me give you a real-life example of gender bias in the medical arena. Heart disease has now become the NUMBER ONE killer of women. Do you want to know why that might be the case, Michael? A woman tells her doctor that she just doesn’t feel well, something isn’t quite right, her stomach hurts all the time, etc. The doctor gives her the usual cursory exam, prescribes zantac for her “stomach problems” and maybe something for her “anxiety” and sends her home. The woman goes home and dies of myocardial infarction.
A man walks into the same office, complains of similar symptoms, and those ECG leads get slapped on his chest faster than he can take his shirt off, and he’s in a cardiac cath lab within 2 hours. It happens every day, Michael, and every day women die needlessly because their “atypical” symptoms are dismissed.
Another real-life example: My husband and I are both in our late 40’s. I have NEVER been offered an ECG during a physical. He ALWAYS gets one automatically. We are both relatively healthy.
Don’t get me going on healthcare, Michael. I am on the front lines, and I see HUGE disparities in the care given to men and women. You have no idea what you are talking about with your “angry white male” schtick.
Actually Michael, I was just kidding around with you. I will not make that mistake again.
To tell you why all this really makes me angry…go take a look at any phone book today, and look at the government agencies that specifically and ONLY support women. Then count up the number that specifically and only support men. Of course you don’t care about the vast difference in government funding given to these agengies to help you , but not to help me. You bet I’m a modern male activist that is going to change it and DEMAND equality of care, sympathy, funding and social attention to “equal rights” and “individual” rights to live as long and live as happy ans supported live as you are entitled to by government programs and protected class 8A assistnace.
My number one goal in my “male activism” and demand for equality as an individual is to get rid of “protected classes” as the most discrimminatory legislation women and minority groups ever got passed by weak minded “politicians”.
Please don’t Moon, become your normal compassionate self again…
You would have to lie face down to have “prostrate” cancer, Michael.
You know I meant prostate Emma..it is completely callous and inconsiderate to make fun of such a serious issue.
[Moon hands Emma an anvil and says you go girl!]
Sorry, an irrestible moment of levity there. I won’t make that mistake again.
LOL, MH
Yes Emma, I saw the one researh report done by a woman who makes this claim. This is not callous behavior on the part of doctors, do you really feel they would intentionally hurt a patient? No. This is typical female advocacy politics. The issue is proper training to recognize all forms of “angina” AND it exists the same in men too, doctors in general miss its symptoms because it doesn’t “put you on the floor” like a regular heart attack does. It doesn’t take female doctors to solve this problem, it takes symptom recognition training for all physicians, male and female.
So EMMA, demand EQUALITY and GET an EKG.. That is what I am doing, I’m telling you we both deserve it equally. I’m demanding equal funding for curing my risk to prostate cancer and my risk to dying of a heart attack 5-10 years earlier.
I do not ignore your needs, but you indicate you are ignoring mine and that is why I tell you women are discrimminating against men and abusing them with their female advocacy behavior to put women’s needs and social desires first, regardless of how must it abuses and hurts men.
And that’s exactly how “you go girl” and all the other phrases I mentioned earlier is used as abusive and offensive language to men. Shall I try a phrase you find equally abussive and offensive about you?
I will tell you in advanced I usually take the higher moral ground and avoid the “slimy covert male bashing” you are engaging in when you do this. I find your tone and use of such words very offensive, even if you think its “funny”.
Oh, please.
I guess I should go get some of my male friends on here to start hurling equal insults and ganging up as you do while you squeal with laughter.
Like I said, I find it abusive, inconsiderate, confrontational, and offensive.
It doesn’t matter what you think, I’m the one being attacked, and I define “abuse” of me.
Michael, I get attacked over here all the time for my strong opinions.
I just choose to take it like a man 😉
And I can even take this thread back to Sonia. Who do you think in a legal ruling on “abuse”, she would give the right to define “abuse” in a supreme court decision? The perpetrator or the person that is the object of the abuse?
Tongue firmly in cheek on that last comment, by the way.
Well you can decide for yourself whatever you want to take as “abuse” from others. I decide for myself what I’m willing to take as “abuse” from others, and set a boundary accordingly.
Try “misandrist”
mis´an`drist (mĭs´ăn`drĭst)
n. 1. one who hates men. Contrast misogynist and cf. misandry.
I like malogyny better, I never liked the sound of “misandrist”. I’m making “malogyny” a part of my political advocacy because it sounds in concept and will have the same embarrasing effect on women who abuse men as equal to the use of the word “misogyny” on males who abuse women.
Since I defined it I can use it.
It also sounds more like the physcological “disorder” or “disease” that both of them are.
“diversity and “inclusion” never meant what it does to people today either, and my fellow equality advocates are redefning the meaning and social sickness in those two words too, they also are damaging to innocent “individuals” and “individual rights”.
I started beating up the concept of “diversity” 4 years ago, when it had a popular pro-minority preference political advocacy that was used by the corporate HR departments (mostly headed by females and minority executives) to attempt to get higher numbers of more minorities and “protected class” groups into the work place by discrimminating against people who belonged to groups with higher populations. I took on my own company HR people and won the argument. My company no longer supports “diversity” advertising. It now has a unfavorable meaning in a lot of other HR corporate offices, because its racial balancing and numbers balancing tactic has been un-veiled. Minority advocacy groups are now trying to use the term “inclusion, to accomplish the same ojbective, give minorities and “protected class” group hiring advantages over others as individuals, by discriminating against individuals and individual skills.
Some people, as on this blog, and still in many companies and government HR agencies, and “equal rights”, “affirmative action” (affirmative action is illegal by the way) departments, still refuse to honor the supreme court ruling that all people are equal in opportunity, but cannot be discrimminated against as individuals just to get racial, gender, religious and ethnicity numbers higher. Deserving individuals are being denied jobs based on their race, and HR departments are ignoring the skills, grades, performance or abilities of individuals as job qualifications.
This is why I so love Obama’s appointment of Sonia. She loves to find the truth in the law (unlike Sandra Day OConner who was a “judge activist”). If and when Protected Class and 8A lawsuits finally make it to the supreme court, Sonia will be the swing vote that will declare them unconstitutional, because she favors the rights of the “individual” a constitutional and democratic concept over the rights of the ethnic, racial, gender or religious group (a socialist concept).
Let me be very clear to all of you, when I hire someone, I hire them based on their SKILLS and ability and I try to get the smartest people I can employed. I don’t care what country they came from, what gender they are, or what ethnicity they belong to. I only care that they be legal and qualified as the most qualified to do the work. The concept of diversity and inclusion NEVER enters that decision, and each individual I hire knows they are EQUALLY important to me as INDIVIDUALS. I let the “numbers” by class fall where the best resumes fall. No HR department can ever accuse me of not giving equal opportunity to all, and being fair and equitable either. I believe Sonia has that belief as well, it is the “individual against individual” that matters in fairness and justice.
Deal with it, Republicans, you lost. Obama will appoint whoever he wants to appoint because he was elected and you weren’t.
We need to remember that this issue is not about her being the first Hispanic justice, it’s not about the fact that she is a female or any of that stuff. If the Democrats were so hot and bothered about the fact that no Hispanic had ever served on the Court, they would not have filibustered Miguel Estrada of the DC Circuit when he was nominated by President Bush. They filibusterd and wouldn’t even give the man an up or down vote. I don’t remember the press calling the Democrats racists or xenophobes at the time because the single underlying issue that drives all politics in Washington today, abortion, was the main issue with Estrada. This time, the Democrats had the opportunity to select the “right” Hispanic candidate for the court and now state that anyone that opposes the nomination has racist or bigoted leanings. The hypocrisy in this town is what turns most people off from politics.
MOving back on to the topic, it seems like both the right and left are grousing about Judge Sotomayer, yet everyone insists that she will be confirmed by the Senate Judicial Committee.
What does the ‘Left’ dislike? What does the ‘Right” dislike? If both dislike something about her, maybe she is the lady for the job…or the human for the job.
Welcome Tom. This will be an interesting appointment for sure. I am withholding my opinion until I find out more. (not that it matters)
I was withholding also, M-h. She has very little to recommend her on choice issues, and you never know about this with potential SC Justices. I think the past few days have gone very well for her though, on this regard and on others. It’s too bad the radical extremist Republicans are stealing all the thunder, because the more rational Republicans are all quite happy with this appointment. Sotomayor is more moderate and less liberal than anyone else who had been discussed.
Tom, who is talking about racism other than Rush Limbaugh and Tom Tancredo? It may be true that some are getting the impression that these two guys sound racist. I wouldn’t disagree with that. But no one is saying that anyone who opposes or votes against the nomination must be racist (or sexist). I think everyone rightly expects 20 or 30 Senators to vote no. No one thinks we have 20 or 30 racists in the US Senate!
Here’s an interesting article:
Forget Whether She Qualifies as a “Racist.” Would Judge Sotomayor Qualifiy as a Juror? [Andy McCarthy]
In every trial — every single trial — judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively — without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror. Indeed, prospective jurors are told that they are not qualified if they harbor even the slightest doubt about their ability to put such considerations aside and render an impartial verdict. If the judge or the lawyer for either side senses bias, the juror is excused “for cause” — the parties are not even required to use their discretionary (or “peremptory”) jury challenges to strike such a juror; rather the judge makes a finding that the juror is not fit to serve.
And the stress on impartiality does not end once the prospective jurors, after being carefully vetted for any hint of bias or prejudice during voir dire (the selection process), are finally selected to sit as trial jurors. Instead, the admonition to consider the case fairly, impartially, and without bias of any kind is often repeated many times throughout the trial. And even after that, it is standard procedure to drum the obligation into the jurors again right before they retire to deliberate on a verdict. Here is the standard instruction:
You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in the case. This is your job, and yours alone. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them…. Perform these duties fairly and impartially. Do not allow sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion to influence you. You should not be influenced by any person’s race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.
Now let’s forget labels like “racist” for a moment. In our society, “racist” is a radioactive term, whether or not it’s applied accurately. I want instead to home in on the premium our law places on impartiality — how noxious it regards the very notion that any important decision might be “influenced by any person’s race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.” No one is saying that those attitudes don’t exist, or even that someone is necessarily a bad person for having such attitudes — sometimes such attitudes are fostered by bitter life experiences that people find themselves unable to get over. But we strive to keep those attitudes out of our law — even to the point of expecting prospective jurors to tell us honestly whether they have such biases so we can make certain they don’t get on a jury. Non-biased decision-making, we tell every ordinary citizen called for jury duty, is the most basic obligation of service in the legal system.
Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let’s say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to “transcend [one’s] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law”; and that there are “basic differences” in the way people “of color” exercise “logic and reasoning.” If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?
Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?
EXCELLENT points, TDB.
I think Sotomayor will be a fine choice as long as she recuses herself from decisions involving white men. How could she possibly understand (or empathize) if she “hasn’t lived that life”?
Wow, great post TDB! That really puts it into perspective.
This appointment is a milestone for the Hispanic community, but otherwise it will be a pretty basic routine. Of the 39 GOP Senators, I would expect that less than half will vote against her. I’m not sure what good it does to pretend to be upset about so many random and unrelated things. Mostly, people are upset that McCain/Palin are not making the appointments. This is understandable. But as all the sane conservatives are saying: elections have consequences. Don’t blame Sotomayor if you’re still upset about Obama winning.
I think that moderates and liberals have as many questions about this lady as do the conservatives.
Where does she stand on abortion? The Obama administration put out some vague “assurances” to their liberal base, but we have yet to get a firm handle on that issue. And yesterday Obama spoke for her regarding her stupid “latina” comment, saying that she didn’t really mean it.
As long as the administration takes it upon itself to define who this woman is and what she stands for, I guess we’ll never really be sure. I’m betting that any of the opposition will lose their nerve when the confirmation hearings come round, and none of the really hard questions will be asked.
Actually, what I heard coming from the White House was that she probably could have chosen better words. Well, yea. On the other hand, that could be said about most of us many times over. We are so unforgiving with others when the stumble over words.
No one is sure where she stands on abortion or gun owner rights. That could be really good or really bad. I am not sure which yet.