EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Jackasses on Sotomayor Ignore Wichita and New York
What Sotomayor Actually Said
OK, let’s get this right: Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is making the rounds of the Capitol this week and some jackasses are still saying she has to explain her “wise Latina" comment?
In a 2001 speech 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."
It’s been a week that the quote has been out there and, for just as long, the question’s been waiting to be answered: A better conclusion about what subject?
Does Sotomayor believe that Latina judges are ipso facto smarter? That's what her right-wing critics want her much-mangled quote to mean. But smarter about what? The price of beans? The weather? What two and two add up to?
Not exactly. While the money-media have spent the week making the comment “controversial” (and then calling it that), the non-profit media watch group FAIR (where I once worked) looked at the transcript and they report (drum-roll):
"The topic under discussion was race and gender discrimination. Talking about judging such cases- Sotomayor argued that the experience of facing discrimination might lead to a better decision about discrimination and she pointed out: 'Let us not forget that until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.'
On the moon maybe it’s different – or in the privacy of your kitchen -- but out here in the actual, lived USA – white males have been the norm (originally white, not-Irish or Italian or German-males). All “others” have had a different experience. A different experience – not of snow or rain or the price of beans – but of discrimination.
In a week that saw the killing of an off duty police officer by an another police officer in New York, and the killing of a women's doctor in Wichita, it’s hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would disagree with Sotomayor.
The New York shooter took the victim for a criminal at least in part because the victim was a black man.
Women's lives are not the same. The assassination of the country's eighth abortion provider brought out of the margins and into the media the reality that women seeking legal care and the people who look after them are still, after decades, subject to the kind of daily harassment, vandalism and threats that no corporate CEO would tolerate for a weekend.
In a week like this, it’s hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would argue that to mention difference in America is to be racist -- or that to have experienced discrimination might make one smarter about it. But what am I saying? All those “right” minds are the problem. Right minds would rather that we pretend we’re all already equal, because then we’ll stop working to make it that way.
Jackass.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
13 Comments so far
Show AllYawn.
Wonder if Laura's handlers have called today: Move On, or someone in Obama's Admin to give her, her daily talking points?
Yes, of course, Elohim, it's really stupid of Flanders to try and state the truth about Sotomayor's remark, especially to someone who uses as a screen handle one of the ancient Hebrew names for God. I'm sure you've seen it all from your cubicle at the Heritage Foundation. Yawn -- or is that 'Yawn-weh'?
Thanks for your latest apologetic on behalf of Laura - apparently she needs surrogates to speak for her now?
Before the election you were on a mission to insure your corporate masters led by Obama getting elected. Since you disappeared for a few months, now back as a foot soldier for the status quo, perpetual war escalation, FISA and TARP continuation, covert air strikes on non combatants, and to cap it off, the recent appointment of McChrystal to head Afghanistan who was Cheney's assassination General conducting black ops in Iraq to insure more efficient killing of innocents.
I remember the last time you delivered a lecture about Obama asserting before the election how he would withdraw all the troops out of Iraq. What is your talking point on the issue now that he plans to leave 50K troops in Iraq, post election reversal? Or maybe you can explain why is engaged in a fantasy called "clean coal?" Along with the news of his reversal on Mountain Top removal to extract coal for his handlers in the coal industry? Even health insurance designed, crafted, and bought for via for profit insurance industry. Ever hear of criminal activity of Bush being taken off the table? Understandable given the Dems who support it, and provided cover, but now looking for refuge from - what is it Obama says - transparency?
Anything you don't understand about any of this?
By the way, ask your handlers who appointed Sotomayer to the Federal Bench: happened to be a guy named Bush. Sotomayer has also ruled obliquely on abortion deciding against choice. The real left asserted recently the Sotomayer will be to the Dems what Souter was to the Republicans.
It is pretty clear you are out of touch with much in the contemporary world as it relates to your icon and hero, RSJ.
But I support your right to dream, lad, even if you are still in election mode casting your obfuscations. Ever think of trying some personal growth experiences instead of more of the same?
Just in case you have not been following the authentic progressive movement on CD, of which neither you or Laura belong:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/27-3
If that does not satisfy, try Chris Hedges or Greenwald for real progressive insight.
Gee, elohim June 4th, 2009 8:46 pm, where did you get all of that out of what I wrote? Strange, I don't recall seeing 'Elohim' here before the election, but perhaps you've changed your screen name since you were bounced off under the old one.
Of course, unsurprisingly, you're sorely in error on many points -- I didn't 'disappear' at all; I have been posting on various threads right along since the election.
I didn't defend Obama on behalf of any 'corporate masters' and if you had bothered to read some of what I've written in these threads at CD, you'd know that. But it's always better to set up straw men to conquer in your imagination, isn't it?
You also weren't paying close attention to what I wrote about Obama; I never claimed he was the perfect progressive candidate, just that he had a better chance of winning than any of the other candidates who weren't John McCain. Do you seriously think we'd be better off now if McCain had won?
As far as defending Obama, I'm just willing to give him a chance to keep his promises, and recognize that he has to deal with scared Democrats and decimated but still lethal Republicans in Congress. As I've also written, yes, he's leaving troops in Iraq -- has it occured to Your Almightiness what will happen to the Kurds in the north if we pull out entirely? Neither the Sunnis nor Shia have much use for the Kurds, and Turkey is chomping at the bit to invade Kurdistan as soon as we leave. What's your omniscient answer to that dilemma, Elohim? What would you do to avoid the certain death of hundreds if not thousands of Kurds?
As far as health care reform, what would you like Obama to do? He has to go through Congress, and Congress is indeed in thrall to the for-profit health care industry and its lobbying money, so single-payer doesn't have a chance of passing at this time. Instead, he's trying to set up what is effectively an extension of Medicare to those who are uninsured and those who have some insurance. Look at it this way: cheaper or free public health insurance will be available, and that will put pressure on the for-profits to lower their rates. Eventually, it should drive the for-profits into providing health care only to the wealthy, while most of us have a form of single-payer, similar to the system in Canada. Sure, it is backing into single-payer, but nothing else seems to be viable at the moment. If you have a better suggestion, tell me.
No, I don't think I'm out of touch at all -- in fact, I live in the 'contemporary world' well outside of the Beltway and have friends who are union members, house cleaners, bartenders, musicians, small business owners and pet care providers. They have a pretty good perspective on what is going on in the 'real world' and they have that rarity in Washington, common sense.
I'm not aware that Obama took prosecution of any criminal activity by Bush, Cheney, et al 'off the table.' Perhaps you're confusing him with Nancy Pelosi.
In fact, both he and his AG Holder said publicly that waterboarding is torture, torture was and is against the law, and Cheney has admitted that he approved waterboarding. Let the law take it course, which, as anyone who's ever been in court can tell you, doesn't happen quickly.
I don't agree with Obama on 'clean coal,' but he is supporting other renewable energy projects as well, so perhaps that's just a temporary political flip to Dems from coal states. In other words, once we're cranking out solar panels and wind turbines, coal will move to the -- excuse the pun -- back burner.
Sotomayor was indeed appointed by Poppy Bush to the lower court, as Souter was to the high court. As far as I can tell she's a left-leaning moderate who actually does rule within the law and precedent, contrary to the fevered right-wing screeching. I really don't think she is going to vote against a woman's right to choose as a Supreme Court Justice. After all, Souter had a conservative-moderate record when he entered the court, and he turned out fine.
Obama was left with a nation collapsing on all fronts and he's been in office six months. You can call it what you will, but I'm willing to give him the chance that you dedicated Obama-haters aren't. If you were a coach, you'd quit the game before the end of the first quarter if things weren't going your way. Try looking at the bigger picture for a change and stop fuming at every daily headline, especially those provided you by the American Big Media who have a stake in supporting Republicans and stoking controversy.
Yes, I regularly read both Chris Hedges and Glenn Greenwald and agree with them most of the time, but I refuse to have a hair-trigger and explode because Obama hasn't turned out to be a flaming progressive on every issue. He didn't run as that candidate, and I don't expect him to be that president -- if he's even fifty percent better than Bush that will be quite an improvement, and I think even you'd agree he's at least that much better.
BTW, I support not only your right to dream, but your right to be wrong, as well.
You bring new insight to the meaning and praxis of a world class Courtier for your Masters in the status quo, son. Apparently the only thing you can offer here is another Dem apologetic. After all that is what you do here, RSJ before the election and now after it. Must make Obama proud, another appeaser for the right of center entrenched elites.
Obama says jump, and those at Court ask "How high?" You remind me of Move On and their 'yes' men, attack war build up - at least until a Dem is doing the escalation - then your ilk does not let out so much as a whimper, choosing instead to crawl back into the woodwork.
Your concern for the Kurds is touching, RSJ. But Obama's support of un-maned drone missions targeting non combatants all under the rubric of "[Obama]is not perfect" response is more galactic stupidity! Reminds me other faux humanitarians like Osama. For example, I was recently struck by the contradictory rhetoric Obama used to describe several unrelated events as measured against recent military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In characterizing his hope of appointing a Supreme Court justice prior to appointing judge Sotomayer, he noted a key virtue in his search was "empathy" for a potential nominee.
The week he made that statement it was reported half a world away in Pakistan that upwards of 100 or more non-combatants were hit with covert air strikes via un-maned drones. The news immediately projected images over the airwaves of the bodies of innocent children and women strewn around the strike site. I was struck powerfully by the juxtaposition of Obama's use of vocabulary about "empathy" alongside of the murder of innocents. It reminded me of various other uses of antiseptic standards when referring to the loss of innocent life.
Another image popped into my mind of a campaign speech Obama made about his own little darlings and terrorism. Surely you are bright enough to understand that human life that is covered in language like "collateral damage" diminishes the scope, praxis, and value of "empathy" and "compassion" further rendering comical any such assertion.
Holding an antiseptic view of life is contrary to empathy and compassion. Furthermore, it renders illegitimate Obama's credibility when he choose to conduct escalating war, covert strikes, both contrary to campaign promises which includes his assertion of withdrawing all US troops from Iraq. Now his Administration asserts that upwards of 50K troops will remain in country perpetually. I am sure you can appreciate the concerns of the authentic left vs. the those living in the status quo in their cute little house on Sunny Side street, while driving their SUV.
I also enjoyed reading your latest fantasy narrative on Obama and Health reform. The promise circa 2008 was that Health Insurance would not be mandated circa 2009, after the election the for profit industry told him otherwise, it now appears it will be mandated creating a massive infusion of profits for industry insiders writing the Bill. Moreover, Obama has never supported single payer despite your continued obfuscations otherwise. Single payer voices were never intended to be given a voice except after the fact: it is called political cover and something you do very well, while rendering impotent any authentic transformation toward a social system. Obama never had any intention of tarnishing his reputation with the corporate elite.
Your comments on Hedges and Greenwald are equally amusing. Obama ran on, "change we can believe in" a clever marketing schema that announced he supported, well, change. What we got was more of the same. No spin otherwise can change the fact that Obama is part of the never ending status quo timid of its own shadow. Living in fear, and perpetuating corporate interests. But I can understand your marriage to corporate interests and ever spinning the issues to offer the hope card, like change is right around the corner. Meanwhile, we loose eight more years of environmental integrity because of the sell outs. THanks, but no thanks.
Furthermore, coal is increasing not diminishing. It is clear you know absolutely nothing about coal. Coal is the most used resource for generating energy on the planet. I suggest you do some research by starting with a real progressive view beginning with Jeff Goddel's book Big Coal, The Dirty Secret Behind the Coal Industry for starters. But since only name recognition gets your limited attention you can also consult with Al Gore, Bill Mickibbern, or RFK jr who recently lambasted Obama as a stooge of the coal industry. Offsets to sustainable projects are too little too late, and if you knew anything whatsoever about the issues, you might stop framing things in a fantasy context for starters.
My advice, lad, is stop playing a progressive wannabe while being a volunteer or paid shill for the Obama Administration while disseminating your non-sense and asserting Obama "is not perfect" routine. Turns out he is not a progressive either, just a right of center, corporate controlled 'yes' man, with deep pockets using the Presidency to enrich himself.
Obama/McCain, McCain/Obama, two peas in the same corporate pod.
elohim June 5th, 2009 8:55 am, you should start a franchise on being wrong, because you've really hit it out of the Error Park here.
Once again, we come up against your apparent reading comprehension problem, your inability to answer the questions I asked, and your penchant for quickly changing the subject whenever you're stuck.
For someone who spouts words like compassion and empathy, you make a snide remark about my concern for the Kurds and, since you don't have a solution for Iraq, then make a beeline to talking about drones in Afghanistan.
You wrote: "Your concern for the Kurds is touching, RSJ. But Obama's support of un-maned drone missions targeting non combatants all under the rubric of "[Obama]is not perfect" response is more galactic stupidity!"
You, of course, avoided my question: What would you do to avoid the certain death of hundreds if not thousands of Kurds if we pulled out entirely?
You wrote: "Holding an antiseptic view of life is contrary to empathy and compassion. Furthermore, it renders illegitimate Obama's credibility when he choose to conduct escalating war, covert strikes, both contrary to campaign promises which includes his assertion of withdrawing all US troops from Iraq. Now his Administration asserts that upwards of 50K troops will remain in country perpetually."
Let's parse this paragraph to show your lack of knowledge and vacancy of logic: 'Antiseptic' is not the word you're looking for -- 'pragmatic' would be a better one. Obama is, as I have stated repeatedly in those posts of mine you either didn't read or misunderstood, a pragmatic person. Would you prefer having a president who wasn't? There are people who want to kill Americans in the world -- would you have him ignore this reality?
Obama made no campaign promises regarding Afghanistan except that he would increase the numbers of our troops there and concentrate on going after Al Qaeda. I believe that's what he's been doing. The use of drones and the loss of innocent life is a tragedy, but I don't think Obama targeted innocent people.
His administration did not assert that upwards of 50K troops will remain in Iraq perpetually, as you write. In fact, that statement was made by an Army general, and one who was not the commander in the region. Once again, you didn't pay attention.
You wrote: "I also enjoyed reading your latest fantasy narrative on Obama and Health reform. The promise circa 2008 was that Health Insurance would not be mandated circa 2009, after the election the for profit industry told him otherwise, it now appears it will be mandated creating a massive infusion of profits for industry insiders writing the Bill. Moreover, Obama has never supported single payer despite your continued obfuscations otherwise."
Uh, it's not fantasy, it's Obama's health care reform policy. You should try reading about it sometime before shooting off your mouth. Since the health care reform bill has not passed yet, it's not clear what will be mandated and what won't, so you're talking out of your pants-seat again. And you're also wrong that Obama never supported single-payer -- in fact, he has advocated single-payer but, as a pragmatist, he knew that it would never pass Congress at this time. Obama told the AFL-CIO in 2003:
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program.... [a] single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."
-- http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1579/article_detail.asp
And, he should have added, we have to have an overwhelming majority of Senators and Representatives who will vote for single-payer. The numbers just aren't there yet. Just FYI:
The Obama Health Care Plan:
-- Offers health care coverage for all Americans similar to that of members of Congress, and subsidies to help those who cannot afford it.
-- Reduces insurance costs ... including capping insurance company profits in places where they have taken advantage of people.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_AdWatch.htm
You might also read:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
BTW, you neglected to answer my question: What's your great suggestion for health care reform that has a realistic chance of getting through Congress?
I have no idea what your babbling about coal had to do with what I wrote, so I won't bother to address that.
You wrote: "My advice, lad, is stop playing a progressive wannabe while being a volunteer or paid shill for the Obama Administration while disseminating your non-sense and asserting Obama "is not perfect" routine. Turns out he is not a progressive either, just a right of center, corporate controlled 'yes' man, with deep pockets using the Presidency to enrich himself."
My advice to you is to stop giving advice to people you don't know. I am not a voluteer or paid shill for Obama nor the Democratic Party -- I'm not even a registered Democrat and I supported Nader in 2000, so you're wrong again. (Do you ever get tired of it?) And please don't lecture me about progressive wannabes -- I marched against the Vietnam War and was chased by cops who wanted to beat my head in back in the '60s, 'sonny boy,' so I think I'll take a pass on your advice on how to be a good progressive, especially since you're so confoundingly wrong on nearly everything else you write. Incidentally, if you're going to charge Obama with enriching himself from his office, you should come armed with proof. What's your proof for this claim?
You wrote: "Obama/McCain, McCain/Obama, two peas in the same corporate pod."
Only to someone blind, deaf and dumb, or trying to smear Obama from the bowels of some right-wing think tank. You never did deny you're an agent provocateur, did you, Elohim?
I been following this exchange. First, I am not on a mission to prove anything.
As someone who has worked in the environmental movement for a long time, I can state categorically that Obama is no friend to the Earth. In fact, his policies are inimical to authentic environmentalism. And since self-importance is not an ego trip worthy of my time, I do not feel the need to defend what I know to be true.
I voted for Obama based on the phenomena of his movement. It is a vote, I now regret.
I will not vote for him in the next election cycle. Instead, my vote will go to a third party.
I've been a caregiver 14 years and the richness of that experience makes possible conclusions I draw better than some one who isn't. Does that make me a racist or bigot or even eletist?
I'm really not a follower of Laura Flanders... heard of her but can't honestly place one position I remember her on... but I have to say, this was probably the most apt, concise view on the subject I've heard. It is absurd... it is really absurd... to think that a court of mostly white people is going to decide cases of discrimination as well as a diverse court. What is so horrible about wanting the makeup of a court to more adequately match the makeup of the body politic? Why is it racist to think that a court that more accurately represented the ethnic diversity of the country would better serve the country than an all-white or mostly-white court? It is indeed racist to think otherwise, if you ask me. Especially when so many cases which reach the court have to do with discrimination, a phenomenon which right now has only been experienced by 2 court members although it afflicts well over half the population (basically, everyone who's not a straight white guy).
Considering that sex discrimination is one of the more frequent topics of the day, and roughly 50% of the American public experience it in their lives, it's insane enough to think that less than 1/3 of the justices are women. Hispanics made up 15% of the population in 2007 according to the Census Bureau, but have 0% representation on the court. Putting a hispanic woman on the court, especially one with such a brilliant and accomplished career, would help both averages, and in fact, it would make the hispanic balance of the court almost exactly match their proportion of the population. I'm a white guy, and I think Sotomayor's nomination is something to celebrate, not deride, and I most certainly don't think I'm being discriminated against in any way for my race (or my gender for that matter). Now, as for sexual orientation...
Just in case anyone is still reading Laura's non-sense. Take a look at an analysis of Judge Sotomayer's decisions on the Federal Court which is fairly middle of the road, to conservative. Source is Scotus.
Sotomayer is not some raging liberal by any means, or by any legal standards I am aware of. Of course, RSJ will spin more tall tales, outright lies, obfuscations, and galactic stupidity on your behalf, if you are interested. (But I did enjoy reading Bohdi's reply about "self-importance" and it rings true.) Most CD article's are now lambasting Obama's presidency. I suppose people like Hedges. Greenwald, RFK, most recently Jim Hightower, Hayden, along with numerous others who are also neo-conservative plants according to RSJ.
RSJ and Laura stand on their elevated perches and then bring down the seminal word on the passive body of the congregation, but I think that is the way the like it. And like I noted at the top: yawn.
Judge Sotomayor and Race
Friday, May 29th, 2009 3:56 pm | Tom Goldstein | Comments Off | Tags: nomination | Print This Post
Email this • Share on Facebook • Share on LinkedIn • Digg This! (18 Diggs, 3 comments)
It is remarkable how much ink has been spilled on Sonia Sotomayor’s ethnic background rather than her legal background.
From the moment the nomination was announced, talking heads have called the President’s choice one based on “pandering to Hispanics” or “checking the box” for minorities. Some have suggested that a white man with her resume would not be so highly praised or that her academic successes were nothing more than affirmative action. Innumerable news features on Sotomayor have described her nomination in terms of identity politics or a symbol of rapprochement to the Hispanic community.
In the rush the find Sotomayor’s “biases,” media personalities and conservative opponents latched onto her Berkeley speech on “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” which provoked Rush Limbaugh’s accusations that she is a “reverse racist” and Newt Gingrich’s now-infamous “tweets” calling for her to withdraw. Instead of looking to the legal precedent in the Second Circuit’s Ricci opinion, the Judicial Confirmation Network said “[Sotomayor] reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety.”
Anything “ethnic,” from the food she eats to the way she pronounces her last name, has been discussed as possibly influencing her jurisprudence. The mainstream media has highlighted her group affiliations, college comments, and a law school discrimination complaint as evidence of her racial preference possibly trumping pragmatism. And then there’s been the blatant race baiting: most shockingly, Rep. Tom Tancredo today called the civil rights advocacy group La Raza, of which she is a member, “a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses.”
It seems to me that there is an infinitely simpler and more accurate way of figuring out whether Judge Sotomayor decides cases involving race fairly and dispassionately - read her decisions. So I did: I am in the midst of reviewing every single race-related case on which she sat on the Second Circuit.
There are roughly 100. They cover the gamut from employment discrimination to racial bias in jury selection. I decided that I would stop and write an interim report once I got through her 50 most recent race-related cases other than Ricci because the numbers are sufficiently striking and decisive. Here is what I found.
In those 50 cases, the panel accepted the claim of race discrimination only three times. In all three cases, the panel was unanimous; in all three, it included a Republican appointee. In roughly 45, the claim was rejected. (Two were procedural dispositions.)
On the other hand, she twice was on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.
In the 50 cases, the panel was unanimous in every one. There was a Republican appointee in 38, and these panels were all obviously unanimous as well. Thus, in the roughly 45 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor never dissented.
It seems to me that these numbers decisively disprove the claim that she decides cases with any sort of racial bias.
I also looked at whether there was anything nefarious in the failure of the Ricci panel to publish a substantial opinion. From the pool of 50, the panel affirmed a district court’s decision rejecting a claim of employment discrimination or retaliation (as in Ricci) 28 times; it did so by unpublished order in 24. Whatever one thinks of the argument that the issues in Ricci deserved more attention than the panel gave them, the decision not to publish an opinion seems to have been pretty commonplace.
When I’m done with the study, I will update the numbers and publish a database with all of the decisions.
elohim June 6th, 2009 9:06 pm, as usual when confronted with facts proving your errors -- such as claiming that Obama never supported single-payer -- rather than apologizing for them, you launch into further attacks or ignore them. For someone who claims to be so progressive you have somehow adopted every argumentative tactic of the right-wing. You also evaded my questions, another neocon gambit, leaving me to believe you are incapable of answering them.
I disagree and criticize Obama myself, and have no problem with those who do so, as long as it is fair and factual. Hightower, Hayden, et al, bother to understand their subject and criticize Obama from that fair and factual standpoint; you don't. You're just a professional Obama-hater. And you quote notorious race-baiter Tom Tancredo to boot.(!)
You wrote: "When I’m done with the study, I will update the numbers and publish a database with all of the decisions."
Why bother? It's already been done by those without the axe to grind you haul around. Read the links below:
Fact Check: Judge Sotomayor's Real Record on Race
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/05/28/sotomayors-record-on-race/
Judge Sotomayor & Race Cases
http://volokh.com/posts/1243909272.shtml
Sotomayor's Record on Race
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/06/sotomayors-record-race
And here's the link to Tom Goldstein's SCOTUSBlog article that you left off:
Judge Sotomayor and Race — Results from the Full Data Set
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/
Your assertion that I hate Obama or anyone else is patently false! What I am against are Obama's policies. But especially his policies on the environment. Ive worked in the non-profit world for over thirty years for sub-standard pay not because I am a glutton for abuse, but because I care for our Earth Mother. If there is a "hater" and "Trancredo" here, it is you, my friend. And people like Laura. The 'true believers' ever vigilant of their own ideology and causes, along with their personal mission to save the rest of us from ourselves.
Sadly, RSJ, you don't present facts here, those are only talking points you happen to believe are true. Nothing more, nothing less. Take for example trying to make stick that I am a right wing plant which is not only dishonest but proves your own obfuscations and lies. I voted for Nader three times, and McKinney once. The last Democrat I voted for was McCarthy in 1972. I've never voted for a Republican in my life. Feel free to contradict my assertion and demonstrate again the fools quest you are on.
You did not even read what I said, immediately launching into attack mode. I did not write the quote you attribute to me, I noted the citation coming from Scotus. Sotomayor ruled against individuals bringing race cases against the powers in all but three cases. I noted her views were "middle of the road to conservative" based on the analysis of Scotus, nothing more. How you got to some thing else reflects your own existential angst, not mine.
Furthermore, you state that you respect Hedges and Greenwald, but Hedges supported Nader. He has adamantly written about every issue I've named - not on behalf of Obama - but against him. Everything I used was taken from their articles on CD, in addition to my first hand knowledge working in the non-profit world on behalf of the Earth.
As an aside, this just published by Hedges:
"The Obama White House tortures and pretends not to. Obama may have banned waterboarding, but as Luke Mitchell points out in next month's issue of Harper's magazine, torture, including isolation, sleep and sensory deprivation and force-feeding, continues to be used to break detainees. The president has promised to close Guantanamo, where only 1 percent of the prisoners held offshore by the United States are kept. And the Obama administration has sought to obscure the fate and condition of thousands of Muslims held in black holes around the globe. As Mitchell notes, the Obama White House "has sought to prevent detainees at Bagram prison in Afghanistan from gaining access to courts where they may reveal the circumstances of their imprisonment. It has sought to continue the practice of rendering prisoners to unknown and unknowable locations outside the United States, and sought to keep secret many (though not all) of the records regarding our treatment of those detainees."
Take the battle to his door step, if you have the guts for it.
What provoked this latest angst (in my opinion) is most likely Flander's faltering career. Apparently she needs surrogates to defend her tripe and escalating apologetic on behalf of Obama; presumably her career is tied to his.
______________
What follows is for anyone else, unfortunately, we've discovered that RSJ and company have a false legacy, they are not the noble iconoclasts they have been painted to be - but especially by themselves. Such individuals can seem to be so earnest that it is exasperating. Caught up in their grandiose nightmare of nobility, rescures, they blind themselves to the power they have to change the world in humble, quite ways. They ignore others' small acts of bravery; more than that, they insist that anyone who focuses on such acts is deluding themselves and wasting their time. Given their power careers and associations, they know what is best for everyone else. They become petulant when the world does not conform to their high profile careers or demands and then try to calculate exactly how to build their power base, obsessing over their strategies.
Conversely, the men and women who actually do have the power to influence nations are usually focused on ideas that play out in small and often unexpected ways. They are uninterested in changing the world single-handedly, and they are unassuming and quick to laugh at themselves because the appearance of power and prestige doesn't matter to them very much.
Please take the last word RSJ, and make it memorable.
To paraphrase you, elohim June 8th, 2009 10:22 am, your concern for our Earth Mother is touching. Somehow, from reading your words, I just don't believe you. After you unload your bile, and falsely claim I posted no facts when I did -- with links -- you accuse me of being a 'hater' and the beat goes on. It's the right-wing playbook laid bare, and I've seen it time and again -- always accuse the opposition of doing precisely what you are doing.
You wrote: "What follows is for anyone else, unfortunately, we've discovered that RSJ and company have a false legacy, they are not the noble iconoclasts they have been painted to be - but especially by themselves. Such individuals can seem to be so earnest that it is exasperating. Caught up in their grandiose nightmare of nobility, rescures, they blind themselves to the power they have to change the world in humble, quite ways. They ignore others' small acts of bravery; more than that, they insist that anyone who focuses on such acts is deluding themselves and wasting their time. Given their power careers and associations, they know what is best for everyone else. They become petulant when the world does not conform to their high profile careers or demands and then try to calculate exactly how to build their power base, obsessing over their strategies."
Excuse me, but this is unadulterated bullshit, and you are the one who was 'petulant' because Obama wasn't giving you a pony for your birthday. This line in particlular made me laugh: "Given their power careers and associations, they know what is best for everyone else." Once again, you are making assumptions about someone you don't know -- not surprising as the rest of your expository house of cards is built on your miserably erroneous assumptions.
Thom Hartmann today was discussing right-wing puppets who appear on left-wing websites with the goal of separating progressives from Obama -- divide and conquer, it's as old as Julius Caesar, and it's the only hope for the corporatists these days.
If you aren't actively a conservative corporatist, Elohim, then you are aiding and abetting them. Perhaps you'll enjoy your Earth Mother when they're finished gutting it.
Incidentally, you still did not answer my questions in my previous posts here on this thread, and you said you worked for non-profits at low pay while not specifically denying you are a right-wing agent provocateur -- fundamentalist Christian churches are 'non-profit' and most of the workers don't make much money. Why are you so afraid to deny this outright?
And I still wonder what kind of obnoxious ego would use 'Elohim' as a screen name, although that would certainly fit with a fundamentalist Christian mentality.