Political Hay
Down From the Bronx
Don’t be fooled by the “moderate” jurisprudence Sotomayor has got, she’s still Sonia, Sonia from the block. Or is she?
Nomination ceremonies in D.C., which often feature a lot of self-congratulatory nothingness and faux-jocular grabass, are kind of like end-of-the-year celebrations for Little League teams that finish in last place. The more meaningless high public life in America becomes, the “prouder” the Sotomayors are to join it. If only my tool-and-die working Puerto Rican father with a third-grade education could see me now!
Why? He might have been disappointed. The PC America created by a degenerate and delusional white liberal elite is actually worse than her father’s neighborhood. She is not “up” from the Bronx but down from it.
She received there, it appears, a good education from Cardinal Spellman High School, or at least a more solid education than the one pampered white children of liberal privilege receive at posh day schools where they call teachers by their first names and learn how to put condoms on bananas.
On her “journey” Sotomayor has insisted that she is still Sonia from the block — that she hopes “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
But where did she learn that corrupt notion? Not in the Bronx of her youth, but at Princeton and Yale after it. She had to enter into the corruption of those largely white liberal enclaves before saying something that unfair and stupid.
Moreover, which “experience” will she be applying to her rulings? The exposure to common sense in the Bronx as a “victim”? Or the suspension of it she absorbed at Ivy League schools as a beneficiary of that bogus status? For all the powerful “personal narrative” nonsense we’ve heard in the last few days, the latter elitist experience is more likely to shape her decisions than the former hardscrabble one.
The Broders and Dionnes are oohing and ahhing over Sotomayor’s “moderation.” But she has good reason to strike a soft tone: she knows, like Obama, that she is not a “victim” in any real sense of the word, but rather a lucky winner in liberal America’s contrived suffering sweepstakes. What exactly is there to be mad about when you are parachuted into Princeton?
And it is this apparent “moderation” which makes Obama, Sotomayor, and company so dangerous: Out of gratitude for a life of good fortune they head-fake to the center, before moving hard to the left out of guilt.
White liberal America lets its lottery winners know in one way or another when the taxes have come due. Take this little resentful rumbling in the Washington Post on Thursday:
“I don’t know what her position is on the core constitutional protection of Roe v. Wade,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, adding: “I will be nervous if the Senate doesn’t get answers to that question.”
And then there was this choice piece of John Roberts-bashing in E.J. Dionne’s column, which gave off a strong whiff of fashionable, but no less rancid, reverse racism and conveyed white liberal America’s expectations for Sotomayor:
[Obama] was drawn to her not simply because the politics of naming the first Latina justice were irresistible, but also because he saw her as the precise opposite of Chief Justice John Roberts…He hopes that Sotomayor will be the anti-Roberts, a person whose experience growing up in the projects of the South Bronx will allow her to see life and the quest for justice in a way Roberts never will.
Take that, John Roberts. How dare you be born white, rich, and resistant to political correctness.
Would that Sotomayor did look at America today from the perspective of the South Bronx; unfortunately it appears she looks at it from the perspective of PC Princeton and Yale, and maybe in time Bethesda, if she can purchase a mansion near E.J. Dionne’s.
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (84) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by George Neumayr
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/29/down-from-the-bronx
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
David Mathews Needs Help| 5.29.09 @ 6:29AM
Stupid...blah, blah, blah.... poor little..... blah, blah, blah.... 21 per cent and declining.... blah, blah, blah... bigot, racist... did I mention stupid? .... mankind is doomed.... blah, blah, blah.... oil.... extinction... old, white male.... please, someone, make the voices stop... blah, blah, blah
drudge ette obama| 5.29.09 @ 6:49AM
More reoccuring themes, little Davey? Where's your address and telephone number? Someone may want to contact you?
I repeat my comments from yesterday:
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.
Robbins Mitchell| 5.29.09 @ 7:14AM
'Senora Racista'...member in good standing of La Raza....would be well advised to clean the cacate out of her campesina panoche before her Senate confirmation hearings....from what I hear,the stench would gag a maggot off a gut wagon.
Melvin| 5.29.09 @ 7:19AM
Ya can take the judge out of the hood, but ya can't take the hood out of the judge.
But this isn't entierely correct either. Because Sonia was never in the hood, she grew up in an enviroment much like the rest of us.
rmartin| 5.29.09 @ 9:03AM
I don't know where Ms. Sanger was when she was needed, but there is always retroactive abortion to consider.
Cameron| 5.29.09 @ 10:23AM
And another spectacular FAIL from AmSpecBlog! This post is supposed to be about how radically unfit for the court Sotomayor is. I guess you couldn't be troubled to read any of her cases to make your point?
It would have been quicker to simply write "Sotomayor is a stupid latina bitch." Your seeming jealousy of Sotomayor's achievement literally drips off the page. She didn't earn her acceptance to Princeton, she was "parachuted" in. I guess affirmative action is what made her rank 2nd in her class as well? Jesus Christ you are pathetic.
Robbins Mitchell| 5.29.09 @ 10:27AM
Well,when you major in 'ethnic studies' like Senora Racista did,it isn't hard to pull a 4.0 GPA....and for some insight into her blatantly racist mentality,all you need to do is read the holding in Ricci vs DeStefano...assuming 'Cameron' knows how to read a legal brief,that is where he(or she) should start.
Aipac will help them| 5.29.09 @ 11:34AM
David Mathews
The Republican party is in trouble, and these are the reminance. They think they are about to go to heaven, by helping to promote wars, and evil in the world.
They will wake up one day to find themselves living on the streets.
They will say but we did the right thing, but the problem is they don't know right from wrong.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.29.09 @ 1:19PM
BO has nominated a hate filled light weight Democrat lawyer/Federal judge (whose rulings are overturned 60% of the time) and bigot to sit on the nation's highest court no big surprise since she compliments him perfectly.
She like BO are the epitome of what it takes to be Democrats in the 20th century -- intellecutally and ethically challenged and indifferent.
Two good things about this pick it wasn't his wife and unlike BO she was born in America.
JP| 5.29.09 @ 1:21PM
Like I said last week, I think President Obama made his first serious political mistake in nominating Sotomayer. With the Ricci Case still pending before the SCOTUS, and the obvious injustice of his and other's treatment due to quotas, Ricci is sure to be front and center during the nomination hearings.
Yes, Sotomayer will be confirmed, but the GOP has a golden oppurtunity to show how racially divisive Sotomayer's judicial philosophy is. Her remarks concerning White Men are not going over well, and her written opinion concerning gun rights will also be highlighted.
Where Obama went wrong is that the hearings of Sotomayer will illustrate for all to see how radical the President and his party really is. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will have to defend her, and the remainder of the Democratic Senators will have to vote for her. The GOP does not have to get personal. They can just politely and professionally demand that she explain her past opinions and judicial philosophy in minute detail. She will have to explain why she and 2 other appelate judges let stand without cause an obvious constitutional injustice.
The President thought he was being sophisticated in nominating her. Instead, he is giving the GOP a golden oppurtunity to show that racism is alive and well in Obama's party. I can just see the ad runs in October of 2010.
DB| 5.29.09 @ 1:27PM
Im not impressed with Judge Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment or her membership in La Raza. Both show racial favoritism and seriously lead me to question her ability to be an impartial Justice.
I concur with most of your article, George. However, as a conservative and proud American of Puerto Rican descent myself, your comment about Sotomayor being "parachuted into Princeton" is a total cheap shot. She was valedictorian of her class at Cardinal Spellman. Could she not have earned her spot in Princeton? Sure, there may have been a white student somewhere in the country more deserving. Then again, there was likely a white student somewhere in the country more deserving of GWB's seat at Yale.
Oldefarte| 5.29.09 @ 1:51PM
This Cinderella political brainwashing is sickening!!!!!!!!!
Pingback| 5.29.09 @ 1:55PM
New Paltz Journal » Blog Archive » Best part of blogging links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Cameron| 5.29.09 @ 1:56PM
Robbins Mitchell,
Have YOU actually read the legal brief? If you had, I suspect you would find that Sotomayor actually takes a conservative stance on the issue. She found that New Haven was forced to throw out the test to legally comply with provisions of Title VII.
She read the existing law, found that New Haven was complying with the law, and dismissed Ricci's appeal. I.E she ruled as a CONSTRUCTIONIST. You know, the concept that judges are supposed to strictly adhere to the letter of the law and not rule based on whether or not they personally oppose what the law says?
Apparently your definition of an "activist judge" is simply someone whose rulings you disagree with, independent of the law. Your partisan hackery is showing.
JP| 5.29.09 @ 2:22PM
Cameron,
The actual legal opinion was just a single paragraph. Sotomayer and her majority dismissed the case without comment, which allowed for the Federal Judge's opinion to stand, who also dismissed the case.
A partial judge does not allow an actiob by the state, a state law or federal statute to stand if it is opposition to the enumerated rights guarenteed by the Constitution. You obviously have no clue about constitutional law. This case is so obviously wrong on so many levels that liberals like you must constantly run interference.
Howard Hirsch| 5.29.09 @ 2:27PM
Funny that I grew up in the south Bronx too (about the same time Sonia Sotomayor did) and think more like John Roberts than I do like her.
Murphy| 5.29.09 @ 2:42PM
Michael Tomlinson --
You write that Sotomayor's rulings are "overturned 60% of the time."
This is a lie that Rush Limbaugh has been repeating this week.
It is absolutely false and Rush knows it. You might not, so I'll explain.
Of the nearly 400 rulings Sotomayor gave on the federal bench over 11 years, 5 were selected for review by the Supreme Court. That's a little more than 1%, to be exact. Of those 5, 3 were overturned.
The fact that 2 were upheld actually reflects well on Sotomayor, since the SC selects cases it is likely to overturn. (The average rate is 75%.)
But even an overturned ruling does not necessarily reflect poorly on a judge. It can, but need not.
Any federal judge will tell you that having rulings overturned is par for the course. It's how our system works.
So, try to read up some on the appellate court system and the SC before sounding off. You won't make such a fool of yourself if you do.
Murphy| 5.29.09 @ 2:44PM
Tomlinson --
And by the way, by your (false) reasoning, Sotomayor would make a far better justice than Alito. Of Alito's cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, 100% were overturned.
Murphy| 5.29.09 @ 2:47PM
Cameron --
My dear sir, give up. You'll never convince these people, these "conservatives," that judicial "activism" is anything other than a liberal conspiracy to murder God and bugger the Virgin Mary over the graves of the saints.
In the New Haven case, which is terribly unfortunate in my view, Sotomayor clearly applied existing law and narrowly ruled on the case. To rule otherwise simply because Glenn Beck's fans would prefer that she did would have been "activism."
Perez Hilton| 5.29.09 @ 2:57PM
So, what's her girlfriend's name? And are they going to get married? Inquiring trolls want to know. What are her views on THAT?
And thank the Goddess she's ANTI-GUN.
Doorgunner| 5.29.09 @ 4:01PM
Cameron@1:56
Have YOU read the brief(s). Apparently not. Cmplaintants and Respondents, through repesentatives, submit briefs. Judges issue rulings. Cato.org and stocdoc.com have the briefs, including to the Supreme Court. I'd accuse you of misrpresenting the facts but it's obvious your just doing the "ol' cut-n-paste".
Next thing you know, you, Murphy, drew, and Toddard will be telling us that Alito and Scalia ar members of The Knights of Columbus and it's no different than Sotmayor's membership in la Raza.
As an aside to drew; she did a nice job on the eggs this morning.
Oldefarte| 5.29.09 @ 5:10PM
Murphy, this comment by Nick concerning Alito's percentage of SC overturned cases [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."] only goes to prove that-----YOU'RE FULL OF EXCREMENT!!!!!
Just Wondering| 5.29.09 @ 5:13PM
David Matthews said "The American Spectator has a low class audience". Isn't he part of the audience?
Marc Jeric| 5.29.09 @ 5:36PM
It is clear now - the ACORN brownshirts are drawing their "stimulus" money ($9 billion) directed to them by Abu Hussein to infect these conversation with their triumphalist invective and name-calling. As for that affirmative action racist and marxist La Sotomayor - there, I said it all.
somnolence| 5.29.09 @ 7:11PM
Mr. Matthews, it is the liberals who constantly bombard the rest of society with their celebration of buggery in its original term. Sotomayor is just another bigot, as displayed by the beauty of videotape. She is more than just a sacrificial pawn in light of what happened to Alberto Gonzales.
ds80| 5.29.09 @ 8:26PM
Sotomayor: "Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."
**CHOOSE*** TO SEE ???
Enough said. Hispanic, female, left-handed or not: disqualified.
Sue| 5.29.09 @ 10:00PM
The real issue is Title VII - 1965 which allows for discrimination against white males; not white females because they were brought in as a "protected class" along with about 30 or so other "protected classes."
When a Nation tries to correct past discrimination with government sanctioned "discrimination" and calls it "restitution" is that not violating all of its citizens rights? You cannot correct the past by violating the rights of the present generation. This law has done more damage to this Nation and prevented minorities from succeeding on their own merits and has relegated them to "second" class citizenry than a white male could ever do.
Look at the discussions being held about her qualifications! She sees herself as being "wronged" by society somewhere along the way. And, this wrong was done by "white males?" I don't get it. The taint of government sanctioned discrimination will always hang around the minorities' neck until they throw off the shackles and say "no more." "Judge us by our character and the content of our actions!" This woman is not interested in throwing off the shackles. She's been only interested in receiving the spoils handed to her by our politicians.
When one speaks as she has about another class of citizens, it is spoken from the heart and is troubling indeed. It's almost as though she is a "man-hater" and you wonder if she would feel the same about men of color?
She definitely does not seem able to follow God's law or Natural Law when expressing her views.
Personally, I would like to see the old mantra, "loose lips, sink ships" apply to her. She doesn't deserve to be appointed to the highest Court in our Nation no matter what her compelling life story is. All of us have a "compelling life story."
My husband had one, too. As a white male police officer denied promotion because of "quotas" and "racial preferences." It is going on all over our Country and she is the perfect example of "racial preferences" over "meritocracy."
Under the racial quota system, all she had to be was "qualified." Not the most qualified. Her selection fulfills everything Obama learned throughout his life. One just has to be "qualified."
All ties go to the minority automatically. So see? The cream will never rise to the top of government again. We're stuck with marginally acceptable government bureaucrats. Just look at Souter, Kennedy, and Ginsburg, O'Connor, and Stevens (well, not always him).
In my life experiences, I was also treated shabbily when first entering the workforce, but I would not use this to advance my own prejudices against every "white male" that exists in America. O'Connor did this. Ginsburg does this too. Maybe its a "woman" thing. Whatever it is, we need to more forward instead of hanging onto the prejudices of our past treatments and this appointment does not more us forward.
All retards, join us now| 5.30.09 @ 1:22AM
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.
Thanks, Michelle!
jane56| 5.30.09 @ 2:54AM
Excellent article.
"The PC America created by a degenerate and delusional white liberal elite." Brilliantly put. And so true!
One commenter above assumes that b/c she was valedictorian in HS she must not have benefited from affirmative action. Not true. Standards for high schools vary widely. That's why we have standardized tests. How did she do on her SAT's?
Jeff| 5.30.09 @ 4:23AM
OF COURSE. Thank you for the illuminating the dark. Thank you belittling Sonia Sotomayor for attending Princeton and Yale then having a successful career in the legal field. "White liberal America lets its lottery winners know in one way or another when the taxes have come due". This has only reinforced my utter contempt for this site. Fortunately, America is decreasingly made up of the old angry white male's that define the TAS staff. Enjoy your time in the political wilderness.
Jeff| 5.30.09 @ 4:41AM
Conservatives have found it very easy to criticize Sotomayor for letting her experiences of growing up a latino in the Bronx shape legal decisions. What they fail to acknowledge is that everyones experiences shape their decisions. John Roberts is someone who grew up part of the cultural/ethnic/ religious/ gender/racial demographic that has traditionally dominated the field (and thus whose perspective has long been the default). His world viewpoint may be the default but that does not make it a neutral one. It aimply allows him to more freely indulge his delusions of pure rationality and objectivity.
drudge ette obama| 5.30.09 @ 6:33AM
Jeff, your defense of little Sonia is inconsistent with your misogynistic attacks against Jane using the foul words which are not only indicative of an inability to express yourself but are also anti-female. Truly enlightened thinkers know that to call a woman a b*tch is no different than calling a black the N-word.
Jeff, little Sonia was not appointed anywhere because of her race. It was her ethnicity combined with a little smarts. She's no Condi Rice.
Shame on liberals| 5.30.09 @ 7:51AM
I don't recall such foul, vulgar and hateful posts prior to the increase of liberal postings. Liberals do nothing to advance their positions/opionions by such. It only causes thinking and educated people to totally disregard any liberal posting as rubbage. The point of civil discussion is to create in-roads, where just perhaps, your stance may cause another to consider what you have to say and possibly rethink their own position. Liberals defeat themselves by vulgar and hateful language.
Just Wondering| 5.30.09 @ 8:21AM
Yes Jeff, we all understand now. You are the "low class" that David Matthews was referring to.
Smitty| 5.30.09 @ 3:50PM
I don't know how Jeff can even read the words on his spittle soaked computer screen. Chill out, you 'tolerant' moron. Your little Latina bigot will most likely be confirmed because she's a fascist liberal like yourself. Nice foul mouth.
mighty| 5.30.09 @ 11:03PM
Coo-op city is not in the south bronx and so please do not drive down the housing values any more.
mighty| 5.30.09 @ 11:05PM
Coo-op city is not in the south bronx and so please do not drive down the housing values any more.
Murphy| 5.31.09 @ 11:36AM
Shame --
The real shame is the ugly racism and bigotry showing itself (once again) among conservatives.
Your response to Sotomayor has confirmed what most people in the country already suspect: the right is the reactionary dwelling place of the racists and proto-fascists that are being marginalized elsewhere.
Hurling accusations of "racism" at Obama and Sotomayor is not going to prevent people from seeing the true nature of racism on the right.
You can try all you want to change the meaning of the word "racism," you can beat and lynch it all you want, but people know what is meant by the word, and the see right through the likes of Beck and Limbaugh and the rest of them. Tancredo and Gingrich are washed up politicians with no future, which is why they're giving free-reign to their racism. You'll see no Senate Republicans talking that way -- because they want to get re-elected.
Face it: your world is finished. These last death-rattles of the American Apartheid system will be completely over with soon.
Rich| 5.31.09 @ 12:54PM
The end of "the best person for the job" attitude in the USA. It seems that political correctness and someones opinion of fairness seems to be the new norm. Is Sotomayor the best for the job? Is she capable of "blind justice?" Who knows. One thing I do know is that professional sports teams hire the best for the job. We dont see those organizations hiring players based on race, culture or some crazy quotas. We dont seem to hear many complaints about that. Maybe we should follow their principals of hiring.
Smitty| 5.31.09 @ 1:27PM
Liberal loons like Murph/Jeremiah don't believe in a meritocracy--Affirmative Action is the only way Murph could get his troll job. Affirmative Action and his foul mouth, that is.
Wingnutty| 5.31.09 @ 1:30PM
Cameron| 5.29.09 @ 1:56PM
@Robbins Mitchell,
"Have YOU actually read the legal brief? If you had, I suspect you would find that Sotomayor actually takes a conservative stance on the issue."
Sorry, if it's more than 1 1/2 paragraphs, the right wing simpletons are not interested. Why confuse them with facts and other boring stuff, anyway?
Murphy| 5.31.09 @ 3:12PM
Smitty --
So ... let me get this straight. I'm a white man from New England, and I'm the product of -- affirmative action?
Smitty, you need to put a little more time into your posts, if you don't want them to be witless.
And it's not I that has the foul mouth: it's the people here who insist on scrawling racist rants that are the foul mouths. There's real obscenity.
Murphy| 5.31.09 @ 3:15PM
Rich --
You don't want "the best person for the job," you want the best white man for the job.
Yours is the most enduring form of affirmative action in our history, and the most difficult to end: the routine disqualification of people who are not white men from power, position, and privilege. It's called racism, which is form of white supremacy. That is what (unwittingly, I presume) you are advocating.
Murphy| 5.31.09 @ 3:19PM
For any position like a position on the high court, there are going to be hundreds of people of relatively equal qualification.
You will NEVER have one person towering above the rest. There are 300 million people in this country, and God knows, lots of lawyers.
A list of hundreds can with something like fairness and accuracy be boiled down to a list of -- say -- 25 or 30.
But there the complexity begins. You have 35 potential nominees. They all have good records and a first rate education. They've all published. They've all decided tough cases.
At that point, why shouldn't a president consider race and gender? Reagan did. George H W Bush sure did. Why not Obama?
Remember, your short list has been selected from hundreds of possible candidates. You've already DONE the work of deciding among the "most qualified." So why shouldn't some other factor at THAT point be considered?
Smitty| 5.31.09 @ 9:15PM
Yes, true believer affirmative action--that's how you got your job. You lie well, that's all that was needed to be a Fascist Liberal mouthpiece. Yes, you DO have a FOUL MOUTH, JEREMIAH/MURPH. There's no excuse for your reprehensible behavior.
Daisy| 5.31.09 @ 9:20PM
Reagan and Bush didn't ONLY consider race and gender for their nominations--Obama did. Remember, Conservatives champion merit, liberals don't--you champion color and gender in order to get payback. You are bigots, we are colorblind.
Murphy| 5.31.09 @ 9:43PM
Daisy --
How did Obama "only" consider race?
Sotomayer went to Princeton and Yale. She was a prosecutor for four or five years. She was a corporate attorney for about seven years. She was a federal judge, appointed by George H W Bush (and voted for by JESSE HELMES), and then she sat on the court of appeals for another eleven or so years.
The Supreme Court IS a court of appeals. It's the highest appellate court. Sotomayer has a great deal of experience -- more than Roberts or Alito had -- on the appellate court, where she wrote almost four hundred decisions.
Now, explain this to me: how did Obama consider only race?
Murphy| 5.31.09 @ 9:45PM
Excuse me: Jesse Helms, of course. Jesse Helms voted to confirm Sotomayor.
By the way. Does that mean George H W Bush and Jesse Helms are racists too?
Tim| 6.1.09 @ 12:03AM
Of course that statement she made was racist.
Just like the case against the firefighters promotions. Any person of average intelligence can see right through her.
She actually believes that she can make better rulings than white folks because where she came from whites were viewed as the bully and the all powerful Oz.
The sad thing is that she may very well be a strong intellect and capable of reaching good decisions but her built in bias against whites will make her a very bad and unfair Supreme Court Justice.
Justice must always be colorblind even if it means that sometimes you must side with white folks when they are right.
Poor babies| 6.1.09 @ 12:17AM
She's going to knock you in the block! Haha, did you get the pun? Lol.
Latino Warrior| 6.1.09 @ 12:18AM
Tim is a racist. Snoozers! You sad old man!
I dont hurt anyone by walking | 6.1.09 @ 12:37AM
If you come from the Bronx you cant possibly be smarter than a white guy! Right? Yeah?! Hi, anyone?
(the writers of this blog prove that one wrong)
Michael Tomlinson| 6.1.09 @ 12:39AM
Sotomayer is kind of sexy...
Internet Lawyer| 6.1.09 @ 12:44AM
"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. "
You graduated second in your class from Princeton? Tell us how easy it was, internet commentator!!!
Worms? Do you realize how fucked up you are?
Tim| 6.1.09 @ 11:01AM
"Latino" Warrior,
If I am a racist? What does your screen name say about you?
Latino--Warrior ---- means what?
ds80| 6.1.09 @ 2:11PM
Jeff: " utter contempt for this site" Goodbye Jeff. Careful of that door on the way out.
Internet Lawyer: "[4th grade potty mouth remarks ]" Oooooh. And I rememeber the first time I used a naughty word in public, too.
Of course, the Left's outrage will be refocused if Sonia the Newyorkrican turns out to actually abide by her claim to be Catholic, and vote proLIFE.
Tom M| 6.1.09 @ 2:58PM
Judge Sotomayor said, in the same speech from which the famous 32 words were drawn (she was speaking of decisions involving cases of race or gender not all cases)
"I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires."
So she was being thoughtful of her own perspectives in making a ruling. Sounds fairly self-aware, something that is rare indeed.
She didn't deny anyone a promotion. The city of New Haven threw out a test they believed violated Title VII. She and 2 other judges on the panel quite succinctly affirmed the decision of the lower court which affirmed the city's decision to throw out the test. The firefighters lost on appeal and decided to go to the top. Good luck to them.
She will have to explain the quotation from the speech, that's what the Senate is supposed to do.
Good for the Goose/Good for ..| 6.2.09 @ 3:15AM
BORK THE BROAD!!
LarryG| 6.2.09 @ 9:48PM
Anyone out there see what they're are shoving up your booty? This is nuts! Great american educational system. Nobody seems to know how to analyze a problem and arrive at an answer that is a solution. Just watch TV. Easy. This woman is a trojan horse.
D.C. Franklin | 6.4.09 @ 4:11PM
I attended a H.S. football game at Cardinal Spellman in October '73. I recall that althuogh it was in the Bronx but it was by no means in a ghetto. The student turnout was low due to the Mets-A's world series game that afternoon. The Spellman team was racially mixed, about 1/3, 1/3, 1/3rd. (I recall keeping stats which meant that I had access to a Spellman roster). I'm sure Sonia's peers would be surprised to hear they attended a ghetto high school. What the Bronx may have later become after Sonia left for Princeton and Yale is beside the point. Also, I undertand she lived in Co-op City on Pelham Bay. A lot closer to Winged Foot than to Ft. Apache. Lib rhymes with fib.
haiyah| 12.4.09 @ 10:13AM
oes tsetnoc blog
oes tsetnoc term
Lelani J | 6.5.11 @ 9:07AM
Woops, leaving ER off the list was a real Snafu na!UTI Treatment