The American Spectator

Darin| 5.28.09 @ 7:18AM

Also disturbing is the fact that Judge Sotomayor does seem to be racist. She said that she thought a Latino women with her background would make a better decision than a white male. Were a white male to say the opposite, they would be viciously attacked. Yet Sotomayor gets a pass. Maybe someday we'll actually live up to Martin Luther King's goal of people being judged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." That doesn't seem to be today.

El Rey| 5.28.09 @ 7:23AM

It is not correct to say, "Sonia Sotomayor might have been discriminated against in her life, but she never suffered the pervasive institutional discrimination Thurgood Marshall did, ... "

Given this woman's age, whatever mild, informal discrimination she might have experienced is dwarfed by legal discrimination that benefited her -- affirmative action, quotas, preferential -- just like the Obamas.

That she is an intellectual lightweight comes with the package that is her.

The woman will be a disaster on the court as she mindlessly follows the dictates of her liberal handlers, the ones who selected and brainwashered her in the doctrines of grievence, race politics, and socialism with probably a healthy dose of anti-Americanism.

Don't be surprised that one day Sotomayo tortured reading of the U.S. Constitution concludes that Puerto Rico is actually our 51st state only we didn't know it all these year. you see, something like that would make 'sense' to her.

drudge ette obama| 5.28.09 @ 7:49AM

Sotomayor's mother is the one who made the strides, not little Sonia who just sat in the nest and swallowed the worms her mother dropped down her throat. Mama paved little Sonia's way.

I am tired of the Earth Mother persona given to ethnic female minorities. Says who? More white guilt from the NY Times, etc. There is nothing Earth Motherish about Sonia. She seems like a loud thug with little judicial temperment.

No one with judicial temperment would have made the smug comments about white men that she did. Nor would someone with judicial temperment have made the statement about policy that she did, then backtrack with tongue in cheek.

As a female nonLatina lawyer, I sense her massive shoulder chip and radicalism. That's because I am a woman and more able to discern this than a nonlatino white male.

I say go after her with all teeth bared.

Melvin| 5.28.09 @ 7:58AM

It doesn't matter if she graduated, "Lord High Sheriff" from Cambridge, if this woman doesn't have an ounce of, "Common Sense" to go along with her education she is nothing more than a educated idiot.
And some of the comments that have spilled from her over the years validate my opinion. Sonia Sotomayor is a elitist bigot who has no place wearing a judicial robe in any court period.
She can't be all that especially when she gets 60% of her rulings overturned.

drudge ette obama| 5.28.09 @ 8:05AM

Melvin, you are right. Appellate reversal rate is significant. You must be a white male firefighter who was denied advancement because you passed a race-neutral test.

drudge ette obama| 5.28.09 @ 8:11AM

You forgot to include your address and phone number. As if that demonstrates anything. No one has time to fuss with you, even less to give you a call on the telephone. Take the morning off and go shoot a picture of another animal at the zoo. But don't feed them, it's against the law.

James Otis| 5.28.09 @ 8:28AM

"Conservatives might as well give up this futile battle because it is already finished. Your innate racism isn't going to change the outcome. "

Wow! That's convincing. Not!

Once again a liberal drone that presumably holds MLK in high regard refuses to see the obvious contradiction: the Democrat Party doesn't judge by the content of character as MLK dreamed but by the color of the skin (ethnicity, gender, etc). The party is by definition a racist one and has been since it's inception. The only difference is the dicrimination that it practices now is supposedly "good discrimination" vs. the prior "bad discrimination." Very similar to Whitey Bulger telling his corrupt FBI handlers that the FBI are the good guys and Bulger and crew are the "good bad guys."

Dave Matthews - do you support the idea that appeals courts are where "policy" should be made? That there are "physiological differences" to explain superior intellect? Latino women good, white men bad?

Of course you can't acknowledge the obvious because that would require making an honorable stand in defiance of convenient rhetoric drenched with feel-goodiness. You can not claim the moral high ground without demonstrationing strong morals such as good ole' objective truth.

Indiana Alex| 5.28.09 @ 8:31AM

I was tempted to call him but after doing some research on this character it came to me that we were never supposed to make fun of the kids that rode the short bus.

Melvin| 5.28.09 @ 8:33AM

No, drudge ette Obama, I'm no firefighter, but during my adult lifetime I have had the rewarding pleasure of listening to many graduation ceremonies where highly successful and acclaimed commence speakers who during the course of their speech emphase common sense that will go hand in hand with that eduation.
I have also had the annoying displeasure of listening to eduacted people who can talk for hours and not say anything.
Yourself being an attorney, I can bet that you have met many collegues and judges that if given the chance you could sit and listen to them hours on end and walk away with knoweldge of a lifetime.

Melvin | 5.28.09 @ 8:35AM

A thought comes to mind. When Clarence Thomas was being roasted alive at his confirmation hearings he made the comment that being on the Supreme Court is an "intellectual feast, how right he is."

Griff| 5.28.09 @ 8:42AM

"Of course, conservatives are so unfamiliar with intelligence that they are confused about such things. Any political movement led by Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and George W. Bush probably shouldn't draw attention to its own lack of intellect. "

This from a person whose leader can't speak without the use of a teleprompter? Davey, I think it's time for your shuffleboard tourney there at the Mediterranean.

Mike| 5.28.09 @ 8:52AM

Mr. Cline writes: "The complimentary commentary would be reduced to: Mr. Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and has had a breadth of experience over his lengthy legal career. That's it." That's it? Princeton, Yale and a career that includes corporate law, litigation and service on the two federal benches. Her initial nomination was by George H.W. Bush. In my book, these are not bad credentials. Okay, she hasn't written a memorable decision. She's not a visionary. Warren was a visionary. Scalia is a visionary. Both have been beloved by some and detested by some. Perhaps in Sotomayor we have a careful jurist. Concerned about race, identity politics and empathy? Read the transcript of Alito's confirmation process. Guess what you will find. And please read the entire quote concerning making policy from the bench, not just the first half.

moranec| 5.28.09 @ 9:08AM

Hello David Matthews
"Conservatives are such bitter sore losers..."?? Guess you didn't notice the Gay reactions to the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8 and all the documented coercion visited upon individual shop owners who did or donated to what they believed. It's always been the far left, whose 'virtues' you seem to exude, who have been the most intolerant masking their anger and arrogance beneath their social convictions. Your failure of empathy is obvious and in need of some remedial training. However, I do NOT recommend sending you to the Sotomyer School of Reverse Racism.

Bob| 5.28.09 @ 9:15AM

Melvin, please correct your facts. Actually, Sotomayor had 50% of her decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court overturned. That is, there were 6 decisions reviewed and 3 were overturned. Sam Alito had 100% of his decisions overturned measured in the same way but Fox News didn't tell you that. In point of fact, about 75% of all decisions reviewed by the high court are overturned so Sotomayor actually beat the odds and Alito did not.

In the firefighter's case (you did read the case, didn't you), Sotomayor followed historical precedent and the law rather than legislate from the bench. Judges must make decisions based on the law, not what YOU think is right. It seems as you are asking her to legislate from the bench. Hmmmm.....

Now whose intelligence were you questioning?

Steve Clemens| 5.28.09 @ 9:21AM

As a La Raza member we can assume she is pro-amnesty.

She is anti-gun.

She is pro-affirmative action.

She is pro-abortion.

She is anchored in identity politics and a self-admitted activist judge.

Yes, she will be confirmed but the fall-out will be spectacular. The above issues lead the list as "losers" for the Dems and the American public has a way of expressing this.

Jackson| 5.28.09 @ 10:30AM

The only thing this Sotomayor, an affirmative action baby from the get-go, will be good for is an exercise in impeachment when she begins to abusing the the U.S. Constitution, a document she doesn't understand.

Northern Rebel| 5.28.09 @ 10:40AM

I don't care if she's purple, she is not a judge. She is a liberal advocate for all things socialist. Her rulings are routinely thrown out because of lack of jurisprudence.

Nothing the masturbator can say disputes these facts.

She belongs running ACORN, or foaming at the mouth in the streets, with the rest of her La Raza cronies.

BTW Mathews. I noticed you wouldn't answer James' question about policy in appeals courts, judging it incorrectly as irrelevant.

You sir, are a coward!

LarryG| 5.28.09 @ 10:50AM

In addition to everything above it seems she is frumpy, middle-aged , unmarried and no kids. Is there more we should know?

Dustoff| 5.28.09 @ 10:51AM

Can you say (Miguel Estrada)
Yep the libs sure treat him nice didn't they.
He wasn't Hispanic enough to them.

John| 5.28.09 @ 10:56AM

Alexander Hamilton had an even more compelling life-story; a story that needs to be re-examined and promoted.

Gill O'Teen| 5.28.09 @ 11:02AM

LarryG, the Pope is also frumpy, unmarried and has no kids. What is your point and just how is it relevant to a sane discussion about saint sonia’s qualifications for the big bench?

Doctor Right| 5.28.09 @ 11:10AM

"The Angry White Male vote is a minority."

- David Matthews

Not for long, Dave.

B. Hussein Obama in the White House, destroying the country.

Unqualified Hispanic racists on the Supreme Court.

Hallelujah! Not much longer, Davey-Boy!

Melvin| 5.28.09 @ 11:10AM

Bob, come on, the Huffington Post. Jeez, the H.P. is proof that monkeys can be taught to be journalists or bloggers.

Siegfried X| 5.28.09 @ 11:16AM

She says white men can't judge. Racist. Sexist.

Sheryl| 5.28.09 @ 11:20AM

Do you think if we all admit that we are a bunch of loser/racists, as well as being the dumbest people on the planet, and that DM and Saint Barack Hussein and Janine Garofalo are the most brilliant people God (or goddess, of course) ever created in the history of mankind, DM will finally finally finally go away?! Then, once he's gone, we could go back to having adult conversations.

John| 5.28.09 @ 11:24AM

Judge Sotomayor has more judicial experience and distinction in her record than any Supreme Court nominee in the last 100 years. She will make an excellent addition to the Supreme Court. I wish her well! All the haters on here are sore because you lost the election- get over it already!

drew| 5.28.09 @ 11:27AM

Wow - this is some scary vitriol for sure....as usual, it's sparked by the near-racist writing of this publication. To raise a silly hypothetical such as "what if Sotomayer wasn't...." is a false argument from the start. Not only is it impossible to strip away an individual's unique racial, sexual, political, biographical, etc., characteristics, it shouldn't be attempted or desired in the first place. People's backgrounds and characteristics are what define them and that's what makes us humans, not robots.

What if Roberts or Alito weren't conservatives? What if O'Connor wasn't a woman? What if Thomas wasn't black? What if Roberts hadn't gone to an exclusive boarding school before applying to Harvard? What if he (and/or Alito) hadn't been previously appointed by W.'s father or worked for Reagan? It's just silliness and you can play this game - one of attempting to backwards engineer how/why people assumed seats on the Court - with every single justice.

What if the American Spectator wasn't "conservative" and what if it didn't have a semblance of lineage and history? That one's easy - it would be defined as a racist publication that bases it's writing on innate, thinly veiled bigotry and xenophobia. The hatred, prejudices and stereotypes spewed forth on these posting boards are a direct result of the incendiary writing of the Spectator's staff - they should be ashamed.....this appears to be a sprint back to the backwards sociology and hatred of the last century - bravo.

Bob| 5.28.09 @ 11:34AM

Melvin, facts are facts -- and I didn't get them from the Huffington Post. I see you didn't disagree with the facts. If Republicans are to regain the high ground, they shouldn't misuse factual information like this. Sotomayor will be a liberal judge, but she is highly qualified -- much more than Thomas IMO and about equal to Alito. She does not seem to be the equal of Roberts and Scalia, however.

How can you trust a party that continually misuses data? You can't. Right now, Democrats are using information better than Republicans. It wasn't that way in the 80's. Then, if you wanted the truth, you'd look at Republicans and laugh at Dems. Now, with the rise of Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, and Hannity, it is the reverse.

Siegfried X| 5.28.09 @ 11:35AM

Because of Democratic double standards, it is important to reverse the roles. For example everyone would have condemned then-Judge Alito if years ago he had said this:

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life".

Siegfried X| 5.28.09 @ 11:37AM

Democrats "using information better"? Yes, like one mention of "Macaca" used to knock a Republican Senator out of office.

drew| 5.28.09 @ 11:49AM

Yes, Siegfried X, making bigotted comments like "macaca" - and then shouting, "Macaca....welcome to America...", to an Indian-American - should indeed be enough to derail a senatorial candidacy....the fact that you're implicity defending George Allen is scary.

drew| 5.28.09 @ 11:54AM

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point....

Siegfried X| 5.28.09 @ 11:58AM

Democrat's are defending Sotomayor's vicious racial remarks, which were even worse than Macaca:

"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"

drew| 5.28.09 @ 12:03PM

those comments aren't "vicious" or racist - she's correctly asserting that there are cases where an experienced woman or a latina may be in a better position to reach a conclusion than an unexperienced white male would be....just like there might be cases where an experienced man or caucasian might be better suited to reach a specific conclusion than an unexperienced woman/latina would be. she's saying that experience and background matter when making complex decisions - are you debating that?

JeffW| 5.28.09 @ 12:13PM

I made this same argument since yesterday on another website and was blasted. Glad to see I am in good company. Siegfried X, you hit the nail on the thumb. If you change the quote to sound as if it comes from a white mail, there is no way the liberals would not jump on it as racist. Why is it 99% of every story I hear about her starts off with her compelling life story and not her record? Because it isn't what the thugs in DC want us to hear. Some of us believe affirmative action is a crutch that is killing us and the very people it was intended to help. If you set the bar lower, then human beings will shoot for that lower bar. If you raise it, then the ones that are hungry for that bar will still make it. Regardless of ethnicity. The last thing we need is to put someone in a goverment position just to make history. Haven't we already seen the folly of that?

Augustin Duron| 5.28.09 @ 12:13PM

This is not useless for it demonstrates that racism is present in both open-racists and anti-racists, racism is a natural feeling, you just cannot ignore races.

JeffW| 5.28.09 @ 12:15PM

My above post should have read, "White male" not white mail. Figured I better post that before some Liberal troll nitpicked me on a grammatical error.

W. Townsend| 5.28.09 @ 12:35PM

What do you mean "If she were white"?

What else is she?

'Hispanic' is not a race, despite the claims of "La Raza".

Dustoff| 5.28.09 @ 12:55PM

Townsend
'Hispanic' is not a race, despite the claims of "La Raza".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bingo.
Plus, unless we were all taught wrong. There is only ONE race. (Human)

Joe | 5.28.09 @ 1:06PM

Davey, Davey, Davey. I see you still want your little red wagon back. And the black racist you are thinks that you will get it back as everyone else gets theirs stolen by the Obama court. What a shame you are so bigoted and spiteful.

Doctor Right| 5.28.09 @ 1:11PM

What if Drew actually made an intelligent comment??

Truth to Power| 5.28.09 @ 1:13PM

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang

I always think of this when I read Bob. Bob confuses parroting factoids with understanding. He is either a useful idiot or just dishonest. I 'd bet on the idiot.

Bob| 5.28.09 @ 1:23PM

Truth, I was actually pointing out the fact that the statistics used on Fox News and by the conservative ideologues were akin to the drunken man and lamp posts. By presenting full information, we don't get a biased conclusion. Thank you for agreeing with me. It's too bad you don't have the intellectual horsepower to understand what you've quoted. Perhaps some schooling and improved DNA will help.

drew| 5.28.09 @ 1:24PM

what if Doctor Right could admit he was deeply and dangeorusly prejudiced and not mask the reality by sophomorically claiming every one else was stupid or wrong?

Bob| 5.28.09 @ 1:29PM

Drew, at best Sotomayor's comments represent a poor way of saying that background affects the way you look at things. At worst, while I wouldn't call it racism, I would say that it is extreme bias. Racism, in my mind, requires one to act against another race. We all have backgrounds that give us bias and that should be obvious from the comments here. Recognizing that bias and using it properly is the way we achieve objectivity. Importantly, that is what she said later in her speech.

We can give her the benefit of the doubt, or not. But you must agree she stated it very poorly.

drew| 5.28.09 @ 1:33PM

I don't diasgree at all Bob - well said.

Cameron| 5.28.09 @ 1:36PM

Has anyone else noticed how unintentionally ironic this entire piece is? Klein attacks Sotomayor as unqualified for the court, while simultaneously blasting the "media" for praising her without citing any of her rulings. Yet I can't seem to find any of Klein's analysis of Sotomayor's opinions anywhere in this piece. Teapot, meet kettle.

Cuffs| 5.28.09 @ 1:56PM

Just wait until Ginsburg retires!
FDR's packing will be outdone for sure.

PolishKnight| 5.28.09 @ 2:02PM

Drew, the racism in her comments is to make a comparison that assumes a white male doesn't go through such experiences. It's a blatant slip that the left views all white males as privileged spoon-in-their mouth bluebloods.

It's rather funny that the men most similar to her background are working class conservative men who support TWO parent families and make their neighborhoods safer rather than just move into elitist white gated communities like Sotomayor and Reverend Wright did. Elitist marxist leftists are moving by droves out of the rust belt and dying California into red states because the same white males they bash as simpleton losers have created low tax, low crime areas that attracts business.

Murphy| 5.28.09 @ 2:09PM

50%?

How do you come up with that number?

drew| 5.28.09 @ 2:11PM

PolishKnight,

While I suppose it's statistically possible, white men don't tend to have the same experiences, perpsectives, or backgrounds as Latina women. To suggest that race, sex, and background are irrelevant or insignificant is silly. Period.

Diverse perspectives and experiences are important - if not essential - on the Supreme Court…..especially given our embarassingly rich histroy of sexism, racism, and bigotry. Alito made the EXACT SAME point - only from the perspective of a white male. And, as recently as last month, Justice Ginsberg made this same point in relation to her unique perspective as the only woman on the court.

I get it - middle-class white guys on this site don't like latino people or women who self-identify as latinos or women. This is called prejudice and is why we desperately need diverse perspectives on our highest court.

Seek| 5.28.09 @ 2:28PM

Ms. Sotomayor is an affirmative-action hire. That much is obviousa. But it's going to be difficult for our side to oppose her. Back in 1991 we had our own version of this: Clarence Thomas.

Can anyone honestly say that if Justice Thomas were white, he'd have his present job? Face it. He'd be just another moderately-equipped white conservative judge -- not bad, mind you, but nothing to write home about either.

Bob| 5.28.09 @ 2:30PM

Drew, please just admit that Sotomayor just blew it with that statement. She was clearly talking about the EXPERIENCE of a Latina rather than the RACE of a Latina but neanderthals have a difficult time understanding the difference. Her statement was an indication of extreme bias based on experience, not race, and is therefore not racism. But it is still extreme bias and should be recognized as such. I also believe that Scalia and Thomas have extreme bias based upon their experiences and have activist opinions most recently demonstrated by the D.C. gun case (although I agree with them on moral, not legal, grounds).

Everyone has some prejudice -- including you. Grouping all "middle-class white guys" together is more racist in my opinion that what Sotomayor was saying because your statement clearly differentiates on the basis of race, and not experience.

Doorgunner| 5.28.09 @ 2:45PM

drew @ 2:11pm

"Diverse perspectives and experiences are important - if not essential - on the Supreme Court…..especially given our embarassingly rich histroy of sexism, racism, and bigotry. Alito made the EXACT SAME point - only from the perspective of a white male."

Apparently drew, you are completely unfamiliar with Latin culture. It is, perhaps, the most chauvinistic and patriarchal of all. So why does the Sotomayor not display any trace of that? Because she's American, not Puerto Rican, and except by appearance, not hispanic or Latin. What she is displaying is a an a Western pattern of behavior wherein the individual vociferously identifies with ones ethnic origins -in hopes of profitting somehow- rather than with ones nationality. It's contemptible behavior.

Incidentally, for your edification, as a man of Italian lineage, Alito is also "Latin". Just not the liberal brand. What damnable hypocrisy you mealy-mouthed jackanapes cloak every argument in.

And yes, that's ad homonculus argument.

drew| 5.28.09 @ 2:49PM

Bob - I already did....see my previous statement.

The reality is that our own gross history of using sex and race/creed/background to prejudge people is why someone like a Sotomayer is perfectly justified in claiming that her standing as a latina female provides her with somewhat unique and valuable perspective and experience.

There is no possible way for a white man to grow up with the same racial or gender sensitivities and epxeriences of a latina women growing up in the 60s - it simply doesn't work that way...and, it's the exact bigotry that's evident on posting boards like this one that continue, ironically, to preserve these divisions and unique perspectives....

Doorgunner| 5.28.09 @ 2:57PM

drew,

No matter how many times you say it, I don't have a "gross history of using sex and race/creed/background to prejudge people ". And apparently the country has moved on. Witness the presidency. Move on. Race is not a meliorating qualification for anything.

Or are you saying Obama was elected simply because he's black?

drew| 5.28.09 @ 2:58PM

doorgunner -

Oh the lengths you'll go! We all know damn well what cultures we're referring to when we use the terms latino/latina (not Latin, as you hilariously suggested) or "hispanic." This is not liberal or conservative....it's just reality.

You're overly rationalized point about being "American" is lost on me. Are you suggesting that unique cultural differences don't exist across segments of our society? Are you suggesting that your experiences growing up were the same as Sotomayer's as she grew up as a second generation latina female in the 60s? And how the hell do you know what sort of characteristics or cultural ideosyncracies Sotomayer possesses? What, exactly, is your point?

Siegfried X| 5.28.09 @ 3:07PM

Sotomayor didn't say she was different, she said that she and all Latina females were BETTER than all white males. That is racism and sexism.

drew| 5.28.09 @ 3:08PM

doorgunner,

While you may not have such a history, our country's is well defined - and much of the vitriol on this board makes it clear that bigotry is alive and well in this country.

No, I am not saying that about Obama - but many others have claimed similar things...just as they're claiming them about Ms. Sotomayer today. Scary indeed.

Doorgunner| 5.28.09 @ 3:13PM

drew,

My point is that I''ll accept arguments concerning intellect, education, and relevant judicial experience. But I won't accept ethnicity, impoverished upbringings, cross-cultural malarkey or "feminine mystique" as enhancers.

It's really pretty simple. With your Alito comparison you mis-contextualize; his remarks were qualified by his prefacing statement regarding impartiality. His point being, that he recognizes his obligation to rise above his unique, individualistic perspective. Sotomayor's remarks, and history (if nothing else , her membership in La Raza/NCLR), evince a refutation of that obligation. And all of your argument has been of a piece with her rather apparent position.

I say "horseshit". Is that clear enough for you?

imxio| 5.28.09 @ 3:16PM

" she's correctly asserting that there are cases where an experienced woman or a latina may be in a better position to reach a conclusion"

We are not interested in their personal or private "conclusions" on the Court. We expect them to have a solid grounding in the Law and the Constitution...a subject in which tribal or gender Identity Politics have no place whatever.

Dustoff| 5.28.09 @ 3:19PM

Drew, please just admit that Sotomayor just blew it with that statement
++++++++++++++++++++++++

OOOOOOO-please. If a white guy had made this statement. You libs would call for his head and have street protest with J. Jackson leading it.
You fools can't have it both ways.

Curtis Rasmussen| 5.28.09 @ 3:26PM

Wrong, Drew

Sotamayor IS the continuation of past bigotry and racism, not the end result. Everyone's life experience is unique irregardless of race, sex, or socioeconomic status, and using that as a tool to downplay the contribution of others is plain and simple bias.

Drew, why don't you help us to put the blindfold back on lady liberty by supporting someone who doesn't give a damn what I look like when I walk into court.

drew| 5.28.09 @ 3:30PM

doorgunner -

I've said it before, I get it: white guys - especially middle class ones - don't accept that the diversity of people's backgrounds has any relvant bearing on their decision-making or personal or professional experiences. Certainly an easy conclusion to make when one's sex, race, etc. hasn't recently been the focus of deeply set societal prejudices. For you to suggest that "our country has moved on" in a desperate attempt to claim that "racism is over" in this country, is to shed light on your very narrow frames of reference - I don't know many latino people who would claim that there isn't any latino-based racism in this country....in many ways it's quite new and growing.

Opaque concepts like, "intellect" and "judicial experience" don't develop or exist in some strange societal vaccum - they develop as a result of one's background, identity, and experiences....I'm at a loss why this would surprise or offend anyone as it's not only common sense, but has been purported by numerous other justices, from Thomas to Alito to Ginsburg. Given that you claim that I took Alito's comments out of context - which, nonetheless, I would deny, I'd like to remind you that Sotomayer's comments about race were also taken out of context - when she made that statement, she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining "race and sex discrimination cases."

So, no - "horseshit" as a retort is far from clear. I say, "double standards based on prejudice" and "weakly formed arguments based on little more than partisanship."

Murphy| 5.28.09 @ 3:34PM

So ...

Sotomayor is a "bigot" and a "racist"?

I can see why many of you would want to play around with the definition of these words, but I don't think you stand a great chance of convincing people to go along with your revisionism.

America has changed, folks.

drew| 5.28.09 @ 3:53PM

Curtis,

Your naivete regarding "a blindfolded lady liberty" is charming. I suggest you go back and read the court's reasoning in the Dred Scot case. Is that when the blindfold first fell off?

As if any of us should need convincing, the court is made up of human beings, imperfections and prejudices intact - this is one reason why diversity on the court should be applauded not condemned. A diverse court is the continuation of prejudice and bigotry? Wow - that is some serious revisionist history - topped off with a heap of self-indulgent rationalization.

You're right, everyone's background and experiences are unique - they are shaped by lots of things - goegraphy, money, family, race, sex, education, and so on. The fact is, our society, for a range of reasons, has a long history of prejudging people based on some of these factors more than others - race and sex topping most lists historically. Therefore, these two things many times impact people's backgrounds and experiences much more than others. Are suggesting that everyone's just sort of the same and it's totally random how folks form perspectives? So, in effect, a white kid from CT who grew up in the 80s has a pretty good shot of having the same perspectives and sensitivities that a second generation latina who grew up in the 60s has? I don't get it - it's like you'd argue that water isn't wet.....

It's amazing that a posting board so riddled with bigotry could be so blind to the very prejudices that drive the hate and rationalization......

Doorgunner| 5.28.09 @ 4:00PM

drew,

Ever been to the fourth ward of Houston, or neighborhood known as Denever Harbors in the third ward? I've "been the focus of deeply set societal prejudices." For years, little presumptuous one. With bullets. Spare us the racist 'white guy don't know" stuff. I didn't claim racism is over. But you certainly seem to be postulating that "white" is incapable of empathy.

Which kind of voids your Alito/Sotomayor parallel statements argument since you obviously -"white guys - especially middle class ones - don't accept that the diversity of people's backgrounds has any relvant bearing on their decision-making"- think Alito was lying.

And for the x time, I freely admit partissnship. Proud of it. And my lifetime/benefactor NRA membership. And my multiple military enlistments in two different branches.

This is an American Spectator forum, the original home of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. What do you really expect; an acknowledgment of your wit? That would make you pretty witless, now wouldn't it?

drew| 5.28.09 @ 4:06PM

doorgunner,
I hear you and understand some of what you're saying. No, the partisanship doesn't surprise me. But, as gunowner who served 12 years in the military myself, I guess I hope/expect more of an appreciation for the nuance of situations - it's far from productive to have everything be defined and fought about along contrived "partisan" lines....we're just coming off the heels of a 2-term republican president who broke almost every rule in the conservative book....at least the ones related to spending and limited government....the partisanship for partisanships sake just doesn't get us anywhere and it's less and less based in practical reality.

David C| 5.28.09 @ 4:07PM

Why would you complain about the lack of analysis of her court decisions in a report where you don't do any serious analysis of her court decisions? You don't even bother to link to an article that's negative about Sotomayor that analyzes her decisions; just one from New York Daily News that reviews her positively. You barely explained the Ricci case, and mentioned the MLB injunction once off-hand. You ignored the rest of her cases. For those who actually care about substance, SCOTUSblog.com has an excellent analysis of her decisions. This is an article of the "pot calling the kettle black" sort.

Oldefarte| 5.28.09 @ 4:10PM

This Murphyfool has only one word in his vocabulary---"racism" ["....Conservatives might as well give up this futile battle because it is already finished. Your innate racism isn't going to change the outcome.....I can see why many of you would want to play around with the definition of these words, but I don't think you stand a great chance of convincing people to go along with your revisionism...."]. When one is so stupid as to not be able to intelligently argue a point with facts/reasoning, they resort to branding, labeling others as racist, sexist, homophobe,etc! To answer Cline's question, Sotomayor would not be nominated if she was white. Her being a Hispanic is the only reason she was selected. In football, Obama would be guilty of MOVING THE GOAL POSTS before a fieldgoal attempt. The point/issue is AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, not her qualifications. Non-minorities are being denied school placement, jobs, promotions,etc, all so that liberal politicians can move the goal posts to their advantage. Why should any non-minority work hard, study, prepare, etc when the eventual outcome of their desire has been PRE-DETERMINED. What happened to the BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST----is it now the the most favored [pre-determined] ethnicity, sex, race, lifestyle??????

Doorgunner| 5.28.09 @ 4:14PM

drew,

Um, Sparky, you've laid this same trap on this same trail before.

And I don't what your MOS might have been, but mine involves killing the enemy. And you're looking like a Serb 'para' to me.

Buh-bye.

drew| 5.28.09 @ 4:21PM

doorgunner,

"trap"? - huh? it's a trap to suggest that supporting a conservative republican who isn't truly conservative is counter-productive?

or it's a "trap" to point out that all gunowners with military experience aren't right-wingers?

the list of MOSs has expanded quite a bit since I was in, but I can assure you I spent more than half my career in positions that involved engaging the enemy (as have the last 3 generations of my family)....not that I understand what relevance that has at all. you've got a small dick, I get it. go shoot some stuff. buh-bye.

Siegfried X| 5.28.09 @ 4:30PM

Democrats are urging the White House to cave in and admit that Sotomayor's remark was sexist and racist.

"Some Democrats and political analysts are urging the White House to shift course and concede that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made an error when she suggested in 2001 that Hispanic women would make better judges than white men.

“She misspoke,” said Lanny Davis, a White House lawyer and spokesman for President Bill Clinton. “Every day that goes by that they don’t say she misspoke and she used the wrong words ... they just feed it and give it life and give Rush [Limbaugh] and [Sean] Hannity more airtime unnecessarily.”

Peter McGrath| 5.28.09 @ 4:39PM

Sotomayor is a product of racial politics and racist policies that routinenly promote women and minorities over better qualified white males. Said policies are meant, supposedly, to redress past racial discrimination but, in reality, such policies are adopted to avoid shake downs by vicious, dishonest "community organizers" and race agitators like ACORN.

Her cowardly non-decision in the Ricci case is indicative of her lack of intellectual depth. Being, apparently, a relatively dim bulb as an appellate judge, she would likely make a fool of herself during her qualification hearings if there were any Republicans on the committee willing to ask, and follow up, on tough questions. Sadly, the eunuchs who qualify as the "leadership" in the G.O.P. won't have the stomach for such a fight.

Thus, another judicial "policy maker" will arrive on the highest court in the land and our republic will suffer another defeat at the hands of tyranny.

megapotamus| 5.28.09 @ 4:45PM

Sotomayor is a racist by anyone's definition. As a member of La Raza she is an advocate of extermination of the "gringo". Even if you are a gay vegetarian co-0p owner this means you, honky. Barack Obama exacts revenge from those who discriminated him into the White House, a position for which he has NO non-racial qualifications and in which he exorcises his neurotic resentments for racism he never experienced. This appointment is a big part of that. Sotomayor should be exposed and opposed but it really matters little if she gains her seat. Anyone else O picks will be a leftwing vote, guaranteed. This brainless affirmative action huckster is as good as any other and her obvious ignorance of the Constitution and her duties under it offer at least the prospect that she will make public statements SO stupid that it will reveal the nature of these putrid anti-Americans that have hijacked the highest offices of the land.

Nick| 5.28.09 @ 4:45PM

Drew,

How exactly is Miss Sotomayor, in your words, a "second generation latina female"? Her parents were from Puerto Rico. And Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. She is no immigrant. Nice try.

People like you see everyone according to their race. It's the first thing you notice. And then you castigate others for being prejudiced. Physician, heal thyself!

Instead of blanket false accusations of racism against the people who post comments here, why don't you make specific charges against specific people? You know, like an adult.

Marc Jeric| 5.28.09 @ 4:46PM

There is that ACORN goon DM stinking up these conversations; he is triomphant with Abu Hussein the Supreme Leader and celebrates the destruction of the USA. Well, only 18 months more before his life turns black again.
As for La Sotomayor - she is a typical product of affirmative action, nurtured by the tenured marxists at Princeton and Yale. With great deal of empathy she will give us the privilege of sniffing many more of those "emanations from the penumbras" of the Constitution in the years to come.

Dustoff| 5.28.09 @ 4:47PM

I wonder if (Miguel Estrada) had used the same words, would the dem's/libs be saying he just mis-spoke as they are with her?

Bet not!

drew| 5.28.09 @ 4:49PM

wow - this woman has really brough the cream of the crop out, huh?! no, Peter, affirmative action had nothing to do with the President selecting Sotomayer - last I checked affirmative action policies don't affect the President's SCOTUS selections.

and, no, policies that "promote women and minorities" aren't simply meant to redress PAST racial discrimination - this posting Board alone makes it clear that racial discrimination and sexism is alive and well in this country. It's clear you've based your dismisall of her qualifications on these same prejudices. You reference a single case from her entire career and ignore such facts are her exemplary record at Princeton and Yale - yeah, a real "dim bulb" indeed. Had it occured to you that maybe there weren't any equally or better qualified white men? apparently we had a total lack of qualified women and minorities for over a hundred years...clearly it's more than possible that we've simply hit a similar dry spell with white guys, right?

Dustoff| 5.28.09 @ 4:55PM

Drew
Board alone makes it clear that racial discrimination and sexism is alive and well in this country.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

No.. How about YOUR party who smeared Estrada and Thomas.

Man you have a short memory.

jr| 5.28.09 @ 4:58PM

Sorry I missed it somewhere but where did she get the money to attned 2 Ivy League schools? Summa Cum Louder -- I sat across a pair of desks from a guy who had 4 degrees. He couldn't do the work he was hired to do. Sotomay-or has been overturned 60%. That probably fits nicely with the 9th Circuit in Kalifornia, the land of I-can't-make-up-my-mind.

drew| 5.28.09 @ 5:01PM

Nick,

Her parents were born in Puerto Rico before the US granted it's people US citizenship. So, her parents were born outside the US, in a spanish speaking, latino country, and therefore Sonia is "second generation" - would you feel better if I referred to her as a second generation woman of Puerto Rican-American heritage? I think this is how she self identifies.....I'm happy to oblige. I can even throw in "who grew up in a Bronx housing project" if you'd like. You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one, huh?

The prejudice on this site is quite specific - the entire basis for dismissing this woman is linked overtly to her background - the original American Spectator article - even it's title - that spurred this stream focused entirely on race, suggesting that she was only chosen as a result of her latina heritage. Is that specific enough?

Stan redmond| 5.28.09 @ 5:09PM

As with Reagan the era of Martin Luther King is over. It's time to move on. Martin Luther King is long dead and his beliefs and speeches reflect failed policies of the past and don't apply anymore. The unbridled greed of the accomplished has proven it's time to consider ones color, sex, religion, and sexual orientation when judging a person. The era of King is OVER! Let it rest. Only whiny republical loosers [sic] would look back on the failed beliefs of a Christian minister.

pete the mediocre| 5.28.09 @ 5:11PM

The only prejudice expressed here is against liberal, activist jurists.
It is not racist to question the qualifications of a nominee to the SCOTUS. Racism would be apparent if the qualifications weren't discussed because she is a member of a minority. She is being treated the same here as she would be if she was a liberal white man.

drew| 5.28.09 @ 5:13PM

dustoff: to be clear, I am not, and have never been, a registered democrat.

the "smearing" of estrada and thomas had nothing to do with race - c'mon....thomas had two people accuse him, in detail, of sexual harrassment, had very poor ratings from the ABA, had never argued a single case in the high courts and had only 12 mons of judicial experience, and he openly criticized affirmative action. Estrada, on the other hand, was primarily opposed because he lacked ANY prior judicial experience and refused to submit ANY of his writings from his employ at the Solicitors General Office. These are hardly parallel or racial situations....

Bob| 5.28.09 @ 5:16PM

Peter, Bush was a product of a legacy admit to Yale and preferred admit to Harvard. He certainly did not have the grades. I didn't hear you talk about him the same way.

JR -- by the same measure, did you know that Alito had 100% of his decisions overturned by the Supreme Court? Of course not because you don't understand the statistic you quoted, do you? By the way, 75% of all of the cases the Supreme Court takes are eventually overruled. You didn't know that either, did you?

You don't get to summa cum laude or law review through affirmative action. In fact, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd understand that when you apply for law review, your name is not attached to your application, there is just a number. When she was chosen, the board did not know it was her.

It's interesting how much the people who post here disregard factual information.

Dustoff| 5.28.09 @ 5:20PM

Drew
....thomas had two people accuse him, in detail, of sexual
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Your kidding right? The whole thing against Thomas was based on what? ZERO proof. Not one person to back up it. The second person you spoke of was NOT there, but was told by here say.
It would have never made it to court.

(racial situations.)

Again really???? Estrada also came from a poor family.

As I said, your memory is lacking.
Ok... not DEM, then your a lib.

Happy now.

Dustoff| 5.28.09 @ 5:26PM

Bob
Peter, Bush was a product of a legacy admit to Yale and preferred admit to Harvard. He certainly did not have the grades. I didn't hear you talk about him the same way.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmm Can you say Kerry & Gore.

Mattled| 5.28.09 @ 5:37PM

Dustoff,

How about every Kennedy since the 40's?

Bob| 5.28.09 @ 5:38PM

Dustoff -- "Kerry & Gore". I'm not impressed with either of them as either politicians or intellects. Can you say "McCain & Romney"? I went to college with a number of legacy admits. Some of them were quite bright, and many of them were not. Coming from a poor background myself I was privileged to receive a number of scholarships and fellowships. It didn't come from my race as I'm white, but it came from hard work, good grades and competitive results on tests. The GI bill helped as well. I would have loved to have wealthy parents or the benefit of affirmative action to make life easier, but that was not possible.

In college I was far more negative regarding legacy admits as most affirmative action students I met were quite bright and certainly more meritorious than those legacy admits. I found that many of the affirmative action students worked harder since they had more to prove.

ds80| 5.28.09 @ 5:44PM

So Liberal Sotomayor replaces Liberal Souter. Big woop-de-do.

This is all about (who cares about qualifications) nominating and confirming a Hispanic female so Libs can "look good". Nothing more. I'm surprised they didn't find someone who is also left-handed and physically disabled.

Everyone recognizes this as yet another instance of the Democrat party still trying to live down their history of racism.

Mattled| 5.28.09 @ 5:44PM

Bob| 5.28.09 @ 9:15AM

Melvin, please correct your facts. Actually, Sotomayor had 50% of her decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court overturned. That is, there were 6 decisions reviewed and 3 were overturned. Sam Alito had 100% of his decisions overturned measured in the same way but Fox News didn't tell --

What is your source for this 100% Bob?

Alito decided on 230 cases in his 15 years. All 230 were overturned?

B**CH-slapped like she was by a fellow liberal BTW?

Drewspollups| 5.28.09 @ 5:49PM

November 7th, 2001, memo to Senator Durbin. "The groups singled out three -- Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit) -- as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, HE IS LATINO, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

ben| 5.28.09 @ 6:04PM

Drew -
Everyone has grown up under different circumstances, prejudices etc. Race, gender, religion etc are not the defining characteristics of that diversity as people of same races, genders, religions etc also display a vast diversity in their upbringings. Meanwhile you call all of us racists while you promote Sotomayor's gender and race as the guarantor of diversity. We are angry at her nomination because through her own words and actions Sotomayor qualifies her conclusions as better than others because of her ethnicity and gender. Of coarse her race and gender are central to her decision making just as mine and everyone else's is, but she and you are trumpeting her qualifications based only on ethnicity and gender then you try to sell it as diversity. Take any random sampling of 100 white males from across this nation and you will find diversity. We are a culture amade up of many other cultures, thus our culture is diverse. By defining diversity in gender and ethnicity you and Sotomayor are acting through racial and sexual motivation. It is not the conservative on this site that brought racism and sexism into this debate, the blame for that rests solely with Sotomayor - her statements and her judicial conclusions. A justice who believes her ethnicity and gender are indicators of superior conclusions has already shown animosity and bigotry to be leading factors in their judgement.

Bob| 5.28.09 @ 6:20PM

Mattled -- Sotomayor had 6 cases reviewed by the Supreme Court and 3 were overturned. Alito had 2 cases reviewed by the Court and both were overturned. I hope you've had enough math to do the calculation. On average, the Supreme Court overturns 75% of the cases it agrees to review. You need to learn some math. It looks like you're the one that has been B-slapped.

Doorgunner| 5.28.09 @ 6:21PM

Hey, drew,

I'm back. Had to pull some injectors for an engine wash. Thanks for the pay check BTW.

Let's see, um, yeah. Took that "kill(ing) the enemy" stuff a little too hard, didn't we? Let's smooth a few feathers:

By "laid this trap...before" I meant that you go on for, oh, say, forty nine posts or so about "white", "middle-aged', "bigot", "racist", "double-standard" "blah blah blah" and then try to pretend that you're the true "non-partisan" conservative in search of TRUTH, JUSTICE, & THE AMERICAN WAY. All so you can get some chump to agree with you on anything so that you can turn around and slam him for some minor ignorance. It's old; give it up.

Now, about your "small dick" taunt. Well, I should resist, but...

As a white, middle-aged, sexist bigot I couldn't care less about the size of my dick- as long as I get mine. And your mom makes sure I do. And if you really loved her you'd teach that hose-bag to cook some eggs.

Dustoff| 5.28.09 @ 6:29PM

Bob
Kerry & Gore". I'm not impressed with either of them as either politicians or intellects. Can you say
+++++++++++++++++++++
So in other words, you have NO point.

Thanks

Nick| 5.28.09 @ 6:36PM

Drew,

I couldn't find out when her parents were born, but when they moved to NYC during WWII, they were U.S. citizens. So, because Miss Sotomayor wrongly calls herself an a child of immigrants, does that mean you are not wrong to repeat it? Ever heard of being accurate? Again nice try.

You are just trying to exaggerate her life story to make up for a rather thin and liberal record on the bench. Why must bleeding heart libs constantly lie?

I specifically addressed your blanket condemnation of the people who post COMMENTS here as racists. Which you apparently still cannot do.

Here are the criterion B.O./libs used to fill the vacancy, in order:

Pro-abortion? Check
Sufficiently liberal on everything else? Check
Hispanic? Check
Female? Check

Bob| 5.28.09 @ 6:37PM

Mattled, here's one of the links that explains more:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270038

Sotomayor has decided over 300 cases in the circuit court. Here are all the cases that were reviewed by the Supreme Court:

Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld

• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0

• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

It looks like my numbers were wrong when I actually looked at the cases. They are not wrong about Alito -- both of his cases were overturned.

Siegfried X| 5.28.09 @ 6:52PM

More words from the bigot, Sonia Sotomayor:

"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."...

I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," ...

Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging...

The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases...

For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach.

Cliverdripper| 5.28.09 @ 6:54PM

Dave Mathews is a typical liberal. A lemming. Conservatives use facts and reasoning in all arguements. Liberals use emotion, but constantly call the itellectually superior conservative arguements and conservatives as stupid because they don't agree with them. There are no facts and when they cite studies that "prove" their points it ALWAYS turns out to be a liberal think tank or other front group whose procedures and methods ALWAYS turn out to be both specious and amateurish. The one thing you can predict about a liberal is that in every argument they will name call, never back up their feelings with any relevant, unfiltered, objectively provable facts.

Murphy| 5.28.09 @ 7:06PM

I keep hearing conservatives like Limbaugh cite the statistic that Sotomayor was overturned by the Supreme Court 50% (or whatever) of the time.

This shows they don't know very much.

The Supremes reviewed six of Sotomayor's cases in eleven years; it overturned three.

Of the cases examined by Justice Alito, 100% were overturned by the Supreme Court.

That's not a bad reflection on Alito, and it's not a bad reflection on Sotomeyor. In fact, it speaks very well of her record.

Limbaugh will repeat this statistic every day for the rest of the summer, but remember: he's counting on your ignorance.

Dustoff| 5.28.09 @ 7:43PM

Murphy
on your ignorance.
++++++++++++++++

Just like WE count on yours?

Nick| 5.28.09 @ 8:06PM

Murphy,

Didn't you catch Bob having to admit that Mr. Alito's reversals amounted to TWO cases. That's TWO, as in 2 total. Wow!

Now, who did you say was ignorant?

Murphy| 5.28.09 @ 8:13PM

Nick --

Again, Sotomayer decided hundreds of cases. Three were overturned.

An overturned case does not even necessarily reflect poorly on the judge. The Supreme Court chooses cases based upon any number of factors.

Trust me, for anyone that knows how the federal appellate system works, this is a non-issue.

By all means disagree with her philosophy as you understand it, but you'll just embarrass yourselves using the number of overturned cases as an argument against her.

Anyway -- it's a free country. Do what you want.

Murphy| 5.28.09 @ 8:15PM

Nick --

One other thing. In the coming weeks, listen to Senate Republicans on the judiciary committee. You'll hear plenty of reasonable concerns. But the number of cases overturned will not be among them. It's a red herring.

Murphy| 5.28.09 @ 8:23PM

The Supreme Court overturns on average 75% of the cases it hears. It overturned 50% of the cases it heard that were decided by Sotomayor. If this were an issue (which it most certainly is not) it would probably swing her way.

Murphy| 5.28.09 @ 8:39PM

I just double-checked.

Sotomayor had FIVE, not six, cases reviewed, three of which were overturned. Her overturn rate, therefore, is 60%, as reported by the Washington Times.

Still, this is no big deal at all.

Murphy| 5.28.09 @ 8:40PM

Scotus blog, to which I've linked here, seems like a fair-minded website on the Supreme Court.

Jim| 5.28.09 @ 8:50PM

The liberls seem to forget that this woman was touted by Obama as "Latina,minority,etc", They didn't tout her record, only her race. A typical liberal MO.
Drew- I don't believe you ever served a day in the military.

Nick| 5.28.09 @ 8:56PM

Murphy,

You're arguing with the wrong guy, pal.

All I did was point out the hypocrisy of castigating Rush for omitting pertinent facts, when you did the same thing with regard to Mr. Alito's reversal rate.

Why do you defend your hyprocisy by trying to refute things I never said?

tanker| 5.28.09 @ 9:03PM

The "Useful Idiots" actually believe what Obama says. The radical left is working overtime to create crisis after crisis to ram whatever they can through before the 2010 elections when the people can put a stop to the economic destruction and also stop the administrations trickle up poverty plan.

Old Texican| 5.28.09 @ 9:50PM

Hi Guys
IALMAO These comments have been more fun reading than the article itself.
Is it a full moon?
Heh! all the left wing nutcases are in full howl.

Murphy| 5.28.09 @ 10:22PM

Nick --

Two days ago I heard, with my own ears, Rush say that 80% of her opinions had been overturned.

That was probably the same kind of mistake I just made.

However, the larger point is that out of nearly 400 cases, 5 were selected for review over 11 years, and two of those (when the SC overturns 3/4) were upheld.

There's just no way you can spin those numbers so they reflect poorly on Sotomayor.

I probably AM arguing with the wrong guy, I realize, and you'll continue to insist that Rush cannot be overturned ever by anyone since he's always 100% correct. Like I said, it's a free country, and you can believe what you want.

Murphy| 5.28.09 @ 10:28PM

Jim --

I don't know what news sources you've turned to, but every one I've seen or heard has spent most of its time covering her judicial style and her case decisions. True, there's been an emphasis on her personal story and her race, but NPR and The Times has devoted almost all of their coverage to her judicial record.

Maybe if you get your news someplace other than right wing radio?

Elizabeth| 5.28.09 @ 10:39PM

I say BORK THE BROAD!

Nick| 5.28.09 @ 10:59PM

Murphy,

Is English your second language? Do you know the definition of "hypocrisy" and "castigate" and "pertinent"?

I didn't write that you made a mistake, or that Rush was right about anything.

Here, I'll try it again, slowly this time.
You wrote that Rush didn't inform us that Mr. Alito's reversal rate was 100% and that he counted on our ingnorance. But in the process of showing us how wrong Rush was for omitting this, you didn't mention that Mr. Alito was overturned a grand total of TWICE.

This is called HYPOCRISY, Murphy, not a "mistake". Glad I could educate you.

Angel| 5.29.09 @ 12:20AM

How about a hypocritical liar or perhaps a lying hypocrite? Either way, Jeremiah/Murph fits the bill.

Nick| 5.29.09 @ 12:39AM

Angel,

I personally prefer "lying hypocrite". It just rolls of the tongue, doesn't it?

Stan Redmond| 5.29.09 @ 12:49AM

The era of King is dead.

David C| 5.29.09 @ 12:49AM

David Matthews is an idiot. A complete moron. (He makes me ashamed to share his first name. Sheesh!)

I'm amazed, given the sheer stupidity of his comment, that he has a Flickr page. How can someone that dumb point a camera and a trigger the shutter at the same time?

Dave, take my advice, grow a few more brain cells before you comment again on this or any other website.

chai| 5.29.09 @ 1:29AM

Ya know 'It-takes-a-racist-to-know-a-racist' david mathews, you better read your scripture and pray you get out of this life with your soul in the right place. And.. your massiah is about to take your freedom away from YOU TOO. i Also...if anyone knows racism, it's the jewish who have been through more hate and prejudice than any other race, for many, many centuries, before the rest know what it was all about and even know who they REALLY are! you may not either.
We are all in for a big awakening, and so will the leaders of the countries, we're at the thresh hold now. So, either drop to your knees know or do it later, or should I say, real soon?!

drudge ette obama| 5.29.09 @ 6:21AM

I reviewed the day's comments and repeat what I wrote earlier yesterday morning:

Sotomayor's mother is the one who made the strides, not little Sonia who just sat in the nest and swallowed the worms her mother dropped down her throat. Mama paved little Sonia's way.

I am tired of the Earth Mother persona given to ethnic female minorities. Says who? More white guilt from the NY Times, etc. There is nothing Earth Motherish about Sonia. She seems like a loud thug with little judicial temperment.

No one with judicial temperment would have made the smug comments about white men that she did. Nor would someone with judicial temperment have made the statement about policy that she did, then backtrack with tongue in cheek.

As a female nonLatina lawyer, I sense her massive shoulder chip and radicalism. That's because I am a woman and more able to discern this than a nonlatino white male.

I say go after her with all teeth bared.

Mattled| 5.29.09 @ 8:56AM

Bob,

ANYTHING from Media Matters automatically disqualifies you from having a brain.

Go away stupid man.

Karen| 5.29.09 @ 12:59PM

Drudge ette, you have an impressive amount of animosity toward Sotomayor (interesting that you are able to "sense" a massive "shoulder chip" in someone you've never met) but very little political sense. Going after Sotomayor with "all teeth bared" is political suicide for your party. Thanks to the Democratic party's increasing share of the Hispanic vote, Obama flipped Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia and Indiana in the last election. Please, by all means keep up the vitriol because we're going after Arizona next time and before you know it, Texas will be a swing state. That means a permanent minority for you and your GOP friends. Man, I like how that sounds. Hasta Luego!

Caitlin| 5.29.09 @ 1:36PM

This is more commentary on the NYT, then it is on Sotomayor.

On her record, see http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243482653

And what if a white man were to say "When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."....oops, one did http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001783/

Empathy much?

eric| 5.29.09 @ 1:41PM

Wow. What a f*%king idiot.

Let's see where this little exercise leads us with someone else -- um, like you, for instance.

So, um, if you weren't [whatever race you are] and [whatever sex you are] -- your accomplishments like [insert accomplishments here, i.e. were you valedictorian of your high school class? did you get accepted at and graduate with honors at an ivy league college? did you receive a top scholarship prize there? did you go on to get a law degree at an ivy league school? did you graduate summa cum laude? were you an editor of the school's law review? did you get appointed for a judgeship? etc., etc.] would be...what? tainted?

Or would you still be just the same person you are -- a f*%king idiot writing rambling nonsensical crap?

Aj.Lockwood| 5.29.09 @ 3:19PM

It's easy to trash the NY Times when you do not read it. The NY Times perhaps thought people who read its editorial might have read this article, which, Mr. Cline, far exceeds anything the Union Leader (my local paper) has done on Ms. Sotomayor or anyone else for that matter. Multimedia, excerpts from rulings, major cases, etc. A ton of stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html

Sirius| 5.29.09 @ 4:26PM

WOW! This little article clearly hit an exposed nerve. I haven't seen this level of animosity, name-calling and sophomoric arguing in some time.

IMHO, I agree with Mr. Cline assertion that ethnicity and gender have nearly everything to do with this nomination. The simple exercise of replacing Latina with that dread creature "The White Male" immediately renders her unqualified for the nomination. If that isn't proof that "race" and gender are central to this nomination...then I await a cogent, coherent and polite explanation of why not.

Perhaps if the Democrats had seen fit to confirm Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court, then this nomination would not seem such a blatant double-standard and pander.

drudge ette obama| 5.29.09 @ 6:57PM

Karen. Intuitive abilities don't necessarily require that someone be physically in the same place as another person. I can watch, listen, and read using television, the Internet and caselaw. Little Sonia is exactly as I perceive.

You are also as I perceive, but it will cost you money to get the psycho-analysis.

I don't vacillate and temper my approach to her nomination based on the future of the Republican party. I am not Obama. I am not a politician. I am a nonLatina, female attorney who mows her own yard, cooks her own meals and pays for your food stamps.

Dave| 5.29.09 @ 9:05PM

It has been my understanding from reading the U.S. Constitution that the sole job of the Supreme Court is to ensure that government functions in accordance with the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and that the rights "bestowed by our Creator" and the protections clearly enunciated in the Constitution are ensured to all persons inhabiting our Republic without bias nor partiality.

If I am correct in my understanding of the Supreme Court's constitutional role, it would seem to me that the real test of a judge's qualifications for a Supreme Court judgeship would be his/her understanding of the original intent of the Constitution and fidelity in rendering judgements based upon constitutional guarantees, not a question of his/her life experiences as a man, a woman, a black, a white, a Hispanic, individual sexual preferences, or any other individual traits. Any candidate who believes otherwise, and attempts to impose his/her individual or partisan agenda in judicial rulings should be disqualified. If these were the true grounds for judicial selection we would not even need to be having this discussion.

Karen| 5.29.09 @ 10:54PM

Drudge ette,
I'm quite educated, employed and I've never been on food stamps in my life. In fact, I am also a white female. Your bigotry is pretty astounding. As long as you carry so much hatred in your heart for your fellow Americans, life will only get worse for you, not better. Times have changed. America has moved on without you. Sucks to be you.

Glock&Spiel;| 5.30.09 @ 1:54AM

One has to wonder why David Mathews hates his own sex and race so much. Very sad.

Dan| 5.30.09 @ 5:35AM

Typical "conservative" crap. Sonia Sotomayor's peers (judges who serve with her, lawyers who know her work) give her high praise, and unequivocally endorse her selection. Also see the recent op-ed piece by the conservative Indiana U. law professor in the NYT. Peer recommendations were essential in her hiring. Nobody's qualifications for an important job are determined by a NYT editorial.

drudge ette obama| 5.30.09 @ 5:58PM

Karen, that you think I am white has not been established. Also, anyone who uses your closing phrase is merely a lowly mimic. I don't know what you mean by being "quite educated". But I propose that doesn't mean much in the scheme of things. Are you a professional student? Lose the Psych 101 passive aggressive attacks. Better to be straight on with your attacks. Karen, you fight like a girl.

gene| 5.30.09 @ 8:22PM

sotomayor like machel obama can now be proud of her country....yeah!mexico!viva la raza!!and now,blame what has happened to her on the white man!it's his fault!!only i can make a better person,so says sotomayor!!

Daisy| 5.30.09 @ 8:58PM

Drudg ette, nice smack-down of the snot-nosed liberal Karen. You didn't say one racist thing about Sotomayor, and you're not the one who is suffused with anger and hatred. Note to Karen: When you point your finger to accuse another, three of your fingers are pointing back at you. Truly sucks to be you.

Daisy| 5.30.09 @ 9:00PM

Correction, Drudge ette: Karen fights like a LIBERAL girl!! lol

Eliza| 5.30.09 @ 9:55PM

BORK THE BROAD!!

Mike Gibson| 5.31.09 @ 8:40AM

obama being an anti-American bigot, that's what he's gathering around himself. Not one appointee he's made has the best interests of America in mind.

Richard Baker| 5.31.09 @ 5:14PM

When I hear the nonsense coming from the likes of Obama and SotoM it does appear as if Dr. King and Medgar Evers died for nothing. The number of people who suffered and struggled to better race relations in the US are legion yet the race hustlers like the two above, and Sharpton/Jackson, trivialize that struggle and reduce it to an absurdity. Can you imagine these departed heroes reaction if they were alive now?

Karen| 5.31.09 @ 8:40PM

So long Drudge ette and your conservative loser pals. Enjoy your political wilderness!

Richard Baker| 5.31.09 @ 9:07PM

Karen:
As an American, which I assume you are, I have a question for you. Where will you seek refuge when and if the country comes apart? Remember, the Canadians and Europeans don't want us. Just curious. What will you do when the personal Freedom you presently enjoy is snuffed out by another truly dictatorial regime? Honestly never saw so many people willing to discard their Liberty and Freedom as you folks seem to want.

Jane| 5.31.09 @ 9:31PM

Drudge ette,
Let me guess -- you're an Asian who has "issues" with Hispanics. Yes, I've met your type.

Richard Baker| 5.31.09 @ 9:37PM

Jane:
Are you clairvoyant? Harry Houdini was looking for you so he could speak with his Mother.

Karen| 5.31.09 @ 9:58PM

Richard, I don't believe the country is going to come apart. As polarized as the right and left can be, I don't see that happening, at least right now. Not sure why you think folks like me are willing to "discard" liberty and freedom. I definitely value my personal liberty. We probably just have a different perception of what that means. Yes, I do fear the possibility of a dictatorial regime rising up in America. But I think it's far more likely to come from the right than the left. Authoritarianism is not a liberal trait.

All Conservative & All Girl| 5.31.09 @ 9:58PM

Look at the liberal female bigots. Ladies, you seem rather nasty and irritable; perhaps it's your 'time of the month'? I pity the men in your life; but considering you're liberal females with male anger issues, you probably swing toward the big butch female types. Enjoy your 'carpet munching', Karen and Jane.

Karen| 5.31.09 @ 9:59PM

Richard, I don't believe the country is going to come apart. As polarized as the right and left can be, I don't see that happening, at least right now. Not sure why you think folks like me are willing to "discard" liberty and freedom. I definitely value my personal liberty. We probably just have a different perception of what that means. Yes, I do fear the possibility of a dictatorial regime rising up in America. But I think it's far more likely to come from the right than the left. Authoritarianism is not a liberal trait.

Jane| 5.31.09 @ 10:06PM

Yes I'm clairvoyent in the same way that so many posters on this board have "intuited" (projected would be a better word) so many things about Sotomayor based on her race and gender.

Richard Baker| 6.1.09 @ 12:18AM

Ladies:
Think that your beliefs that the country can't or won't come apart says to me, at least, that you haven't researched the history of societies throughout the ages. The lessons are there but each generation believes that it has all the answers and refuses to use the lessons learned. So, we relearn the lessons the hard way until the next time we forget them.
SotoM has said and done things, that if done by someone white would be pilloried roundly. Dr. King and many others spoke of the content of one's character and not the color of one's skin as important. However, the liberal side of our society has been so busy trying to kick the house down that serious resistance occurs. This country was founded on the belief that the rest of the world was a place from which to flee and coming here for that which is unavailable elsewhere. If SotoM, by here statements and judicial rulings seems to reflect and want the destruction of that which yielded a level of freedom and prosperity unknown in history then she needs opposition. The reason the rest of the world wants to come here is because of what we've got. Speak to people who've come here from almost anywhere in the world and they can't figure out why Americans want to throw it all away. I've lived here all my life and I can't figure it out. Where will we find refuge when our actions cause the end of this system?

Richard Baker| 6.1.09 @ 1:08AM

Correction
by her statements, not here statements.

Scarlett| 6.1.09 @ 1:49AM

Mr. Baker, Jane is a typical liberal blinded by ideology. She has no clue as to what is happening in our country right now. She sees liberalism as flowers and rainbows, never bothering to look at the ugly underbelly of liberal ACORN tactics and Obama's purposeful lies. To Jane it was necessary that Obama take over the Auto Makers, Nationalize the banks and S & L Industries because "It's Bush's fault." After she reads the NYTimes and struggles through several hours of MSNBC she is convinced she knows the truth: She's got the smug snottiness to prove it. You're wasting your time, kind Sir--she's not worth it.

Smitty| 6.1.09 @ 2:21AM

Jane, your post would've garnered more respect if you had spelled 'clairvoyant' correctly. Sorry.

Tim| 6.1.09 @ 12:16PM

Karen,

Have you ever heard of Karl Marx?

He was no right wing loon but he believed that the wealth was to be shared by all but that the masses had to be controlled.

Lennin and Stalin were no right wing loons either but boy did they like to control folks! They liked to destroy millions of folk's lives as I recall kind of in the same way Hitler and the other right wing loons liked to do.

Don't confuse true Liberalism or true conservatism with power hungry and power grab extreme politics of both the far left and the far right. Both extremes want an "Authoritarian" uthopia built in their own image!

CH| 6.1.09 @ 3:04PM

Save your breath, Tim. Ms. Karen has put her fingers in her ears and is humming some liberal tune.

Ernesto Portillo Jr.| 6.1.09 @ 3:55PM

The author is incorrect when he wrote: Sonia "Sotomayor? She was born the year Thurgood Marshall helped win the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which didn't apply to Hispanics because Jim Crow laws didn't apply to Hispanics."
Jim Crow laws aimed at Latinos were very much part of American life in the west and southwest. Segregation was rampant and institutionalized. Mexican-American families continually fought back, leading the way for the erasure of white only laws. In 1930 Mexican families near San Diego, California, filed suit against a local school district for creating a Mexican-only school in one of the earliest educational desegregation cases.
http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/86spring/lemongrove.htm

Richard Baker| 6.1.09 @ 5:19PM

Senor Portillo:
The one part about Latino politics that doesn't make any sense, to me at least, is that the "leadership", such as that is,DEMANDS bi-lingual education while every poll, such as they are, shows overwhelming antipathy for that approach among Latino parents. Can you enlighten me regarding this disparity? I am truly curious.

Richard Baker| 6.14.09 @ 12:09AM

Senor Portillo:
Which system would you rather live under? The US or Mexican? Be honest , now.

Tom Poole| 6.17.09 @ 11:30AM

Karen, this country is going to come apart because we no longer can rely on the law to function as the Constitution intended. As examples: our DOJ dismisses a civil right case which was viewed by me, and I'm sure millions more (the Philadelphia Poll Blockers), no explanation, no reason, "justice" for blacks? The POTUS violates a law he co-sponsered and fires an IG who did his job. People in Congress asking why? the press asking questions (you got to be kidding). Obama is looking for, and will find, a way to declare martial law, use his "civilian volunteer security force" and re-write the Constitution as he likes it. That is when even "useful idiots" will come to their senses and the race/class war he wants will occur.

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 2:47AM

Very good article written byWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
ah

Lingerie| 9.17.09 @ 9:33PM

sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie