The American Spectator : Sotomayor's Flawed Reasoning

Sotomayor's Flawed Reasoning

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 6.4.09 @ 6:08AM

WASHINGTON -- Liberal opinion is now heavily engaged in belaboring Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh for calling the Prophet Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a racist. The proximate cause for this charge is Judge Sotomayor's 2001 statement to an audience at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law that "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."

Well, possibly the bigotry inhering in that line does not rise to the level of being racist. So will the critics accept the appellation supremacist? Based on the meaning of Judge Sotomayor's statement, supremacist certainly applies. Yet if Judge Sotomayor disagrees with me I guess she is right. After all I am a white male, and according to her she, "a wise Latina woman," will "more often than not reach a better conclusion" than I. Now what kind of a society have we arrived at through Judge Sotomayor's reasoning? It is a society in which some groups are superior to others, namely, wise Latinas are superior to the rest of us. That is not what I call progress over intolerance, bigotry, or, for that matter, stupidity.

Nonetheless, this is the mindset of Liberals who hold sway at the nation's law schools. Professor Barack Obama had the same point of view when he taught at the University of Chicago Law School, which he made clear back in the autumn of 2005 when as the junior senator from Illinois he voted against the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. As Senator Obama saw it, Judge Roberts lacked the background to judge with "empathy" on a range of issues from affirmative action to abortion to something about the Commerce Clause -- on that something he was Obama-like inscrutable.

The consequence of Sotomayor's and Obama's bigoted mindset is that they are by definition right and those who disagree with them are wrong. This is classic ipse dixit reasoning, which is to say: reasoning based solely on the assumed superiority of one's standing. Again, this is the reasoning of a supremacist. It is intolerant, bigoted, and surprisingly stupid.

The position does not hold up to rational analysis. According to Sotomayor and Obama, a person whose life experience has included a select series of privations is better equipped to judge that experience than persons who have not undergone those privations. This novel way of viewing privation is right out of the 1960s youth culture and the radical left. It is a flawed argument generally recognized as "argument by assertion" or "argument from authority."

One could argue with equal cogency that a person who has suffered these privations is unable to make wise judgments about them. Arguably the deprived person has been traumatized by privation. In fact, such claims were made by some social scientists before the 1960s. They assumed that persons from impoverished backgrounds lack a wider perspective on life. Thus the deprived person could not judge bourgeois life clearly or impartially. Only a "wise person" free of this experience of privation would be capable of prudent judgment.

By Sotomayor's and Obama's reasoning, the best doctors for treating cancer are doctors who have suffered cancer. The best counselors for treating alcoholism are reformed alcoholics or possibly practicing alcoholics. An even more illuminating reductio ad absurdum of Sotomayor's and Obama's position is this: the best counselor against suicide is a "wise person" who had attempted suicide.

The problem with their position is that it assumes we are all prisoners of our experience, except for Sotomayor and Obama who have somehow transcended their experience. The rest of us cannot think objectively. In fact, we cannot read the law or the Constitution unimpeded by our backgrounds. Yet Sotomayor and Obama are here to guide and to govern. At some point, perhaps, we will get over this middle class idea of holding elections. Or maybe Sotomayor and Obama will simply suspend them. They seem to know what is best.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Racism, Racial Colorblindness, Supreme Court Nominations

drudge ette obama| 6.4.09 @ 6:30AM

Excellent points made. Apologists like Neal Boortz now focus on what they think Little Sonia meant: her experiences make her able to come to a better conclusion. That would not be racist and people who use that term are ignorant of its meaning. Then why didn't she limit her qualifiers to experiences alone when she wrote her prepared remarks? Why did she include her sex and ethnicity? Why did she pick the polar opposite to be a white male? Boortz can't answer that too well because he has given more weight to her use of the word "experiences" rather than the DNA-determined white, and male/female qaulifiers.

Whether she is racist is unknown to probably all people. She is certainly guarded, as we all are, and won't play that hand in the open.

But it is possible that she thinks her ethnic group is superior than whites. She might think females are superior than males. Then she is a sexist? That involves DNA, but is typically ascribed to men for their attitudes towards women. Another double standard. I don't think sexist packs the same punch as racist, though.

I can only go by her statements which indicte to me that she is prejudiced against whites, especially if they are male. It would fit the La Raza membership profile better.

Can anyone imagine Judge Roberts making a statement like that? No, because he has the obvious judicial temperment. You could see it by listening to him and watching his reactions at those insanely rude Senate hearings when most of us, me included, would have climbed over the mikes to clobber Kennedy or Leahy.

Marc Jeric| 6.4.09 @ 6:31AM

As usual Mr. Tyrrell is right on the point, although any difference between a racist and a racialist escapes me. La Sotomayor is a typical product of affirmative action, with a superiority complex (like Obama), nurtured by tenured marxists at Princeton and Yale (like Obama). Over the next 30 years we will have the frequent privilege of sniffing those emanations from the penumbras issued by La Sotomayor the Emphatic.

ds80| 6.4.09 @ 7:43AM

Bob Tyrell gets it: Sotomayor = Obama.

SOTOBAMAYOR. The Newyorkrican and the Magic Negro both disdain the Constitution.

Jack-of-Hearts| 6.4.09 @ 7:44AM

That Sotomayor is a documented bigot and racist means she fits perfectly in the Democratic Party -- the party of Jim Crow, the party of formal segeration, the party of keeping the Negroes chained to the government Plantation via the chains of dependency, and always the party of race quotas and multiculturalism

Sotomayor is the stooge of the liberal elite who themselves believes minorities like her (and B.Hussein Obama) are children but children who can be used to push America towards fascism.

Jack| 6.4.09 @ 8:29AM

Sotomayor is Toto pulling back the curtain that hides the Wizard of Oz. She serves this purpose very well indeed!

ncatty| 6.4.09 @ 9:35AM

Repubs appoint Colin Powell and nominate Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada. Doesn't matter - Repubs are the party of racism. Dems oppose Thomas and Estrada. Doesn't matter - Dems are somehow incapable of being racists. I give, let identity politics rule.

Mike| 6.4.09 @ 9:42AM

To TAS,
I've been visiting your site for a week now. I have tried to post rational thoughts and opinions, trying to keep in mind one should be respectful of others in a public forum created for discussion of current events. One of the main reasons I read the comments posted is to see what others have to say about the particular article in question. However, it appears you have allowed a flaming war to override the purpose of these forums that has me questioning whether any useful insight that might be gained worth the exposure to this hate speak. Granted one could just ignore such posts and read the relevant content, but I am only human. This seems to be an every day thing here. I will not post in TAS after this till you have corrected the current enviroment that exist here.
If you cannot responsibly moderate your site, I question your ability to be called a useful community endeavor that I assumed was aimed at bringing forth intelligent insight to a very complex world.
Sincerely, Mike

Anthony| 6.4.09 @ 9:44AM

Yes, Bob has nailed it, once again. This Leftist perspective is nothing more than a version of re-distributionist thinking, only along moral and philosphical lines. The paradigm is as follows: perceived traditional powerless minorities, by defination, cannot be racists, they are, as a result of their oppression at the hands of white hegemony, superior to us, hence, Sotomayor's and Obama's rationale when it comes to the Left's race and gender pecking order.

JG| 6.4.09 @ 9:46AM

Racist is racist, whether they are liberal or conservative. This "holier than thou" attitude being emmitted by the self proclaimed "elite" of DC/MSM has got to go.

Marcell| 6.4.09 @ 9:53AM

134854, Republicans, here is how to save your party!
Posted by PurgedVoter on Mon May-25-09 01:27 AM
Here is your guide to strong leadership, Republicans! Don’t look for your current leadership to fix anything, they broke it. It is up to you to take over your party and make it a strong force to protect your family, community and nation. Here are a few tips that will insure your victory!

To become the real agent of change, you must be the change. To be the party of truth and honor, there are a few requirements. First off you need to treat your opposition with honor. You need to keep to facts and be the first to correct your mistakes. If you make a mistake you should immediately try to repair that mistake. If you made a decision or held a position that you cannot support with the truth, then you must come clean and change. Otherwise you will be just like the Republican Leaders that got you into this mess. Never again make unsupportable wicked accusations, lie about or try to cheat your opposing party. Don’t support those who lie, cheat or steal. An unfairly won election means a cheater is in charge. You can’t trust a cheater. Even if he says he is on your team. Sadly your current leaders never tell the actual truth. They have managed to fool a lot of the people a lot of the time, but now the chickens have flown home. It has gotten so bad that people not only distrust Republican Leaders, they don’t even trust Republicans. Holding onto the lies that your leaders have used to manipulate you with will not help you restore your party to the greatness it once held high. This was the Party of Lincoln and Eisenhower. Two truly great men and great presidents.

Hillary blatantly lied during her campaign and people hardly cared. If the Republican Leaders had ever told the truth, they might have been able to gain ground there. Instead, despite that blatant set of lies, people still like her more than any of the Republicans. She lied, they never told the truth. Big difference there. Her lies helped Obama, but didn't do a thing for Republicans. If they were actually honest, then they would have gained tons of voters that hate lies. Despite being covered with fleas, the voters were not about to jump to a dog that was black with them. Sadly most Republicans know deep inside that lying, hatred and cheating are wrong. Yet they have proudly supported men famous for lying, cheating and stealing. Sadly when you go to a Republican Function, you are going to hear the sexist and racist comments, from leaders and from supporters. This stains this once great party.

Drop the partisan bit. When Republicans scream about the Democratic Party being partisan they gain no respect. The only ones they fool are their blindest supporters. Try instead to cooperate on something that helps the majority of Americans. Right now it is pretty obvious who the extreme partisan party is.

Expect your leaders to show some respect for your opposition. Your leaders call the Democratic Party the Democrat Party. This makes them seem petty and stupid to independent thinkers. It gains Republicans nothing. It is like constantly getting a persons name wrong. It does not help you make friends and it does not make you look honorable.

It is fine for your lower end to call us things on occasion or twist our name every now and then, but when a leader calls all who disagree with him socialists, communists, fascists and traitors, he is not going to make a lot of friends. It really makes you the followers seem a bit less intelligent for following them.

At the time of this writing, the official elected Republican Leaders of our nation are considering a resolution to start calling the Democratic Party, “The Democrat Socialist Party.” This may make you titter and laugh, but in the end it will make you, the supporters of these men look stupid and reactionary. I do not think that the leaders of the Democratic Party should start calling the Republican Party, the Republic Fascist Party. Nor should they start calling it the Republic Medieval Party or the Republic Medieval Fascist Party. Not in public anyway.

I laugh when people come up with a good insult. When a person makes it a constant speech mannerism it gets annoying. It makes them seem rather mean spirited When they start to believe their exaggerations to be the literal truth, It becomes clear that they are indeed mean spirited. At every turn your leaders are showing this level of charm. It is stupid when we do this sort of thing, sadly your side never misses doing it. Try for once to lead by grace, not by insinuation.

Drop the extreme character assassination. Your arguments have been getting more savagely partisan and divisive every year since the great Republican, Eisenhower. You never really mention him much since your policies are directly opposite his. If he was alive today, you would call him a communist, fascist and a surrender monkey. It is pretty clear historically that he is the opposite of all of these, but that really would not stop you. This is the first thing you need to change. You need to start respecting democracy. You have used insults so freely that you don’t even know what the insults mean anymore.

Stop using the Confederate Flag. Entirely. The folk that fought and died under it showed more respect for the Union than you do. When you wave this flag, you offend quite a few people and you are waving a flag of division. You are not a patriotic member of the United States when you wave it. You are at best stupid. At worst, treasonous. This flag represents rebellion against the United States of America. When you fly it, you cannot really call yourself a loyal citizen of the United States. If you are a secessionist, then you may possibly be a patriot to the people and territory of your state. If you are a secessionist then you are not a patriot or loyal member of the United States or your state. If you are a secessionist and you serve as a leader in this fine nation and have sworn to uphold the constitution and protect it from all enemies then you are forsworn and a traitor to the United States of America.

Now that I have explained simple manners let me give you a few tips on politics. First off, the selfish business men are starting to run from you in droves. They used you, made you who you are and will now slink away. This is going to hurt, but you can use it to your advantage. You are not going to win anymore by sticking to the low road. The low road is simple enough, if you continue to suck horribly then the wealthy interests will be working hard to insinuate themselves into the Democratic Party. All you will have left is the radicals that pretty much represent your party now. The end result is that the selfish factions with money will be part of the Democratic party struggling for dominance within the Democratic Party.

To gain power again, you will have to make a few major changes. I don’t think you can do it, but we need you to do it. We need two strong parties to remain a strong democracy. Sadly none of your leaders are saying this.

To gain power again, you need to actually stand for something. Something achievable and productive. If you actually pushed for teachers to have smaller classes, better benefits, and higher pay, this largely conservative group would largely jump on your bandwagon in a moment. Instead you have cut them off from having a say in education, stripped them of half their retirement security and managed to reduce their real income substantially. If you actually led the way to giving more protection, money and future to educators, a rather huge demographic would jump to your party and the educators of our children would be pretty well united in supporting you.

You could also do this with unions. Seriously. These folk want to be conservatives. The fact that you have vilified and stabbed the common worker in the back for years, is the only reason these people don’t vote in a solid block with you. Hard workers usually have little respect for the government giving stuff to people who don’t work for it. Yet you have managed to alienate them by trying to prevent people who work hard from being securely rewarded for their hard work.

Every one of your leaders has at one time tried to pretend to be an environmentalist. No environmentalist believes you anymore. We know better. Saying you support something while attacking it at every turn does not lead us to trust you. You might think that a conservationist would be conservative, in fact you are right. We conservationists are conservative. You are not. You may be conservatives, as you define yourselves, but in no way shape or form are you conservative.

Drop the entire prayer in school thing, you are not supposed to pray loudly and try to look holy anyway. Someone I respect quite a bit told you to pray in a closet. Trying to put religion into a science class is disrespectful of religion, ignorant of science and goes directly against the founding principals of our democracy. Science cannot study God and your beliefs are not scientific. Sorry about that, but that is just how it works. If you ignore science then you are ignoring truth and you can never be free.

Your random attacks on minorities also needs to stop. Seriously drop all racist, homophobic, and religious persecution at the door. It is not helping you as much as it is hurting you. It is hurting others and it brands you for all time as selfish, evil bastards. I suspect that if you have read this far, you are going, 'Religious persecution? We don’t do that, ever.' This leads me to my last point.

Get a clue. Gays who have come to terms with their differences and are religious are persecuted strongly and these days exclusively by your party. Do you honestly believe that Muslim children think that you protect and respect their rights to practice their faith?

Before you start sputtering and saying, ‘But the Democrats ….’

Remember this one simple thing. A progressive once told you to remove the log from your eye before you point at the splinter in mine.

The only good way to regain respect and dignity is to deserve it. The Democratic Party has a ton of things wrong with it. Really bad things. The Republican Party, from my position has nothing good going for it apart from being the opposition. Supporting your party as it stands is almost treasonous. We need you in the game, playing hard and fair. Right now you are just not worthy to play.

D.C. Franklin| 6.4.09 @ 10:19AM

From the 6/4/09 Wasonia Sotomayor shington Post (p.C3):

TABLE FOR ONE

"Hey, isn't that Judge Sonia Sotomayor dinng...at a little upstairs table in the back- all by herself? Hey, after a day of glad-handing and photo ops on Capitol Hill, who wouldn't crave some solitude?"

David Souter?

NavyBrat| 6.4.09 @ 10:42AM

"When you fly it, you cannot really call yourself a loyal citizen of the United States."

Really? And the people who fly Black Panther flags, or wear their t-shirts, or Che t-shirts are? Seems as if you're all for one set of rules for the majority party & interested only in dictating how we are to fight our political battles. I don't know what military strategy you've studied ("War is a continuation of politics through other means"...Von Clauswitz), but the idea is not to let the enemy dictate the terms or terrain of the battle. By taking into account you're advice, that's exactly what we'd be doing.

"You win battles by knowing the enemy's timing, and using a timing which the enemy does not expect."...Miyamoto Musashi

By now, our enemy (politically known as the opposition) is predictable. They use the race card at the drop of a hat. Same with the "victim" card in general. The opposition also seeks to sow the seeds of discord within our ranks by getting out messages not unlike the one you posted above.

The opposition may seem many times more powerful than us because they control most of the means of public information & education. Of course, history is replete with examples of smaller armies (causes in this context) holding fast against far larger forces, to the end that the outnumbered forces withdrew totally, or, if they DID win the day, their victory was a Phyric (I doubt I spelled that right) one. Marathon & Thermopylae are 2 good examples of a smaller force using the terrain to their advantage & negating the enemy's use of their prime weapons (cavalry, in these 2 cases) & superior numbers.

Given the truth of Von Clauswitz's words, then the converse must be true as well. Politics is, in many ways, a type of warfare. To let the enemy dictate the terms of battle is folly. We, as conservative, must use the political terrain to our advantage in order to negate the superior numbers & weaponry possessed by the liberals (statists).

PS. If anyone could be the poster child for fascism, it's the fool in the White House. Take a look at the government dictates to the private industries & compare them to the acts of Mussolini & Hitler. They aren't all that different.

Mike M| 6.4.09 @ 10:44AM

I hope that "Mike" is referring to the presence of David Matthews on this site.

Susan B| 6.4.09 @ 10:46AM

If you really want a great read, you MUST check this out. This gentleman is a black conservative who writes a witty blog. But his story is compelling, and he needs to be heard. http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com/2009/06/big-black-lie-is-finished.html

This is sure to be a best seller, as I got an advanced copy. You will be blown away!

gui| 6.4.09 @ 11:11AM

It's funny that you should mention that "Sotomayor and Obama will simply suspend them (elections)".

I began converting my stock and savings into gold the day after The Messiah beat Hillary on Super Tuesday because I saw what was going to happen, and the destruction of our currency is happening now before our very eyes.

If The One holds true to form He will, with the blessing of the House and the Senate and the US Supreme Court, suspend elections saying that "it is for the good of the country."

And 10 minutes after he says that ...

Anarchy

Paul from SA| 6.4.09 @ 11:41AM

Mr. Tyrrell, the word "Racist" needs to be defined, clearly at the beginning of your article.

I agree with you that Sonia is a Racial Supremacist. I also believe she is racist. Whether she will be a racist judge is the question. Jeff Lord’s previous article where he replaced the word, “Latino” with “white” in some of her comments, my first thought was she is a Supremacist. If she was Republican Man, the MSM would brand him a racist. But then look what happened to Trent Lott.

Sonia Sotomayor places people into categorical groups based on RACE (and gender), and then assigns superior and inferior abilities and traits based on their race (or gender). We’re not talking about the ability to run and jump; we’re talking about the intellectual ability to make correct and incorrect decisions. That is racism.

Being a racist is a frame of mind. I don’t buy the Jesse Jackson definition where being a Racist involves the power to discriminate or harm someone.

Oldefarte| 6.4.09 @ 11:54AM

Bob Terrell's article [and included reasoning] is outstanding and greatly appreciated; and exactly describes the liberal mentality and sense of superiority!!!!!

dcd| 6.4.09 @ 1:32PM

I'm hoping that someone wil ask Sotomayer if an astute asian will reach better decisions than a wise latina, if a white male will come to better decisions than an intelligent indian, or if an intelligent indian will come to better decisions than an astute asian

cabin| 6.4.09 @ 1:37PM

Thank you very nice on good shares were explained. Kabin

Mike| 6.4.09 @ 1:40PM

Mike M| 6.4.09 @ 10:44AM
"I hope that "Mike" is referring to the presence of David Matthews on this site. "

That would be affirmative.
I feel a little bad that I kinda got a little hostile and vented on each of the articles with the same post.
I do apologize for the intrusion.
It appears TAS took a closer look at the situation and have removed some of the more vitriolic postings and responses.
I hope that continues...
I really like the choice of articles presented and the genuine commentary is pretty good here.
Again, I apologise to TAS and it's readers for my rant and brinkmanship.
Because of their prompt reaction, I will never again bring the subject up, and will continue if acceptable to contribute as best I can. :D

Mike| 6.4.09 @ 2:04PM

Great article, one can rationally follow the logic here, yet a problem I have with the whole situation remains...
I truly believe that the President doesn't care whether or not Ms. Sotomayor is confirmed or not. Nor do I believe he personally chose her.
I would put forth that as this administration's short track record shows, no crisis is wasted and there is nothing more exciting for his closest advisors then to get together and plan the next distraction for us to focus on.
Scenario: So, which is the best candidate to fill this mission? A Bush compromise to the left that's an ethnic/gender/political/emoting/biased devisive liberal activist.
This not a crisis wasted, but one in the works.
It certainly has diverted much commentary about all the other crisis including the "Our Brave New Muslim World" speech given recently, and the list is getting pretty big.
Thing is, even if not confirmed, she has served her purpose, and then we'll have the second one on the list appear.
We have no choice but to engaged because we certainly can't stand by and let this Constitution killer get on the Supreme Court.
I know, this sounds so cynical. But the truth is the truth no matter how you twist and spin around it as you drape yourself in our cherished flag......

Bob| 6.4.09 @ 2:57PM

How do you judge a racist? How do you judge a supremacist? Do you judge it by a line in a speech to an interest group or do you judge it by behavior? The fact is that in over 80% of the discrimination cases Sotomayor ruled upon she decided AGAINST the minority interest. We know how she is going to rule.

So you bring up the Ricci case -- just one out of a hundred. Have any of you actually read the case and looked at the precedent? To rule for the firefighters and break with previous precedent meant that you were making law, not interpreting the law. You would have to be an activist judge to decide in the firefighter's favor.

Now being an activist judge in that case is preferred by conservatives because the words "activist judge" relate primarily to abortion rulings. So if you make law in an affirmative action case, it is OK with conservatives.

It sounds as if most of you haven't lived in minority communities. It is well known that most successful minority individuals are harder on their "own kind" than on others. Sotomayor's behavior verifies that fact.

Now let me draw the picture. Sotomayor is an unabashed Bronx native talking to a group of Latina women. She makes some "over the top" remarks. Those of you who don't know Bronxians or have not lived in minority communities take the remark out of context.

This is a bad play for Republicans for a couple of reasons. First, the Hispanic vote is important -- especially in California, Florida, New York, Texas and the Southwest. Hispanics are growing faster than other minorities. In addition, just using the word "racist" or "supremacist" will anger blacks. Obama people love your honest reaction to this -- it not only solidifies its base, but it marginalizes the Republican party.

Lastly, you could do worse. It would be far worse for Republicans for Obama to nominate a "pure white" liberal. They wouldn't worry about how "whites" saw them. At least we know that Sotomayor is very conservative on business cases siding with big business the majority of the time.

As for me, I like her conservative views on business and don't care about the abortion issue because I'm pro-choice. I do worry about affirmative action on any of Obama's nominees as I believe in a meritocracy. However, I think that Sotomayor will be the best we can get from Obama on affirmative action cases as she has proven to be harder on minorities than a Dianne Wood or Elena Kagan who tend to be much more ideological.

I encourage you to actually read her opinions and make up your own minds rather than judge on a couple of lines in a speech to a minority group. Furthermore, I encourage you to read Scotusblog for a real analysis of her actual behavior in adjudicating cases.

Perhaps if TAS would actually spend some time doing actual research rather than popping off it would be more widely read.

Robert Rosencrans| 6.4.09 @ 3:23PM

When one speaks of objectivity, one should also think of Objectivism, and one of the true geniuses of the last century, Ayn Rand.

As she points out so brilliantly in this essay, of which I've only clipped a small part, racism and collectivism, and the destruction of capitalism, go hand and hand.

It is the read of the day. Hit the link and read the entire essay. True genius.
http://freedomkeys.com/ar-racism.htm
Historically, racism has always risen or fallen with the rise or fall of collectivism. Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group (to "society," to the tribe, the state, the nation) and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force -- and statism has always been the poltical corollary of collectivism.

The absolute state is merely an institutionalized form of gang rule, regardless of which particular gang seizes power. And -- since there is no rational justification for such rule, since none has ever been or can ever be offered -- the mystique of racism is a crucial elemeent in every variant of the absolute state. The relationship is reciprocal: statism rises out of prehistorical tribal warfare, out of the notion that the men of one tribe are the natural prey for the men of another -- and establishes its own internal sub-categories of racism, a system of castes determined by a man's birth, such as inherited titles of nobility or inherited serfdom.

The racism of Nazi Germany -- where men had to fill questionnaires about their ancestry for generations back, in order to prove their "Aryan" descent -- has its counterpart in Soviet Russia, where men had to fill similar questionnaires to show that their ancestors had owned no property and thus to prove their "proletarian" descent. The Soviet ideology rest on the notion that men can be conditioned to communism genetically -- that is, that a few generations conditionned by dictatorship will transmit communist ideology to their descendants, who will be communists at birth. The persecution of racial minorities in Soviet Russia, according to the racial descent and whim of any given commissar, is a matter of record; anti-semitism is particularly prevalent -- only the official pogroms are now called "political purges."

There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism.

Individualism regards man -- every man -- as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful co-existence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights -- and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. (See my articles "Man's Rights" and "Collectivized 'Rights'" in the April and June, 1963, issues of this NEWSLETTER [or Chapters 12 and 13 of the book].)

It is not a man's ancestors or relatives or genes or body chemistry that count in a free market, but only one human attribute: productive ability. It is by his own individual ability and ambition that capitalism judges a man and rewards him accordingly.

No political system can establish universal rationality by law (or by force). But capitalism is the only system that functions in a way which rewards rationality and penalizes all forms of irrationality, including racism.

A fully free, capitalist system has not yet existed anywhere. But what is enormously significant is the correlation of racism and political controls in the semi-free economies of the 19th century. Racial and/or religious persecutions of minorities stood in inverse ratio to the degree of a country's freedom. Racism was strongest in the more controlled economies, such as Russia and Germany -- and weakest in England, the then freest country of Europe.

It is capitalism that gave mankind its first steps toward freedom and a rational way of life. It is capitalism that broke through national and racial barriers, by means of free trade. It is capitalism that abolished serfdom and slavery in all the civilized countries of the world. It is the capitalist North that destroyed the slavery of the agrarian-feudal South in the United States.

Such was the trend of mankind for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years. The spectacular results and achievements of that trend need no restatement here.

The rise of collectivism reversed that trend.

When men began to be indoctrinated once more with the notion that the individual possesses no rights, that supremacy, moral authority and unlimited power belong to the group, and that a man has no significance outside his group -- the inevitable consequence was that men bbegan to gravitate toward some group or another, in self-protection, in bewilderment and in subconscious terror. The simplest collective to join, the easiest one to identify -- particularly for people of limited intellligence -- the least demanding form of "belonging" and of "togetherness" is: race.

It is thus that the theoreticians of collectivism, the "humanitarian" advocates of a "benevolent" absolute state, have led to the rebirth and the new, virulent growth of racism in the 20th century.

JG| 6.4.09 @ 3:36PM

60% of this woman's decision have been overturned. Empathy has no place in a court, especially the last stop in the judicial system.

As for the Hispanic vote, they never vote conservative anyway and if the Democrats continue to feed that base they will find that one day there will be nothing left to offer.

Bob| 6.4.09 @ 3:51PM

Rosencrans - isn't "racism" just another form of political divide and conquer? Democrats use racism in the form of affirmative action and giveaways to garner the minority vote. Republicans use racism by finding ways of minimizing the minority vote, fighting against immigration, and forming a closer bond to whites through racial rhetoric. This behavior has led to the Republican party having the lowest percentage of minorities in recent history. As demographic trends continue, this problem for Republicans will just get worse as population growth and immigration will cause the minority populations to grow.

Racism is further enabled through older, reactionary whites. Most polls indicate that younger voters are far less racist than older voters. Here again, the Republican party is older.

I actually agree with the thrust of Ayn Rand's views. But the question, is what is the proper response. You are playing into the hands of collectivists by making racism an issue rather than promoting a meritocracy through actions and rhetoric.

This is where "conservative" views are failing -- they are talking about the problems with Democrats rather than the future of equal justice. Read through the multitude of comments (and your quotes) on this board. You'll find hate, disparagement, name calling, and demonization rather than positive views of limited democracy, mericracy, and conservation of economic and physical resources.

borninoc| 6.4.09 @ 3:52PM

Bob,
How about little further enlightenment from you. You stated that in 80% of Sotomayors cases she ruled against the minority. You state the Ricci case is one of a hundred. Also, you state she ruled based on precedent. Please state your sources for these apparent facts. I've heard these talking points bandied about on the web yet cannot find a single first source to verify them. As for the Ricci case, please specifically name the court precedent she sites in her decision.

Robert Rosencrans| 6.4.09 @ 3:55PM

Bob: You're full of bull, as usual. No, it is you who are the racist, and you are attempting to stand logic on it's head, and you are also a liar. You state you agree with Ayn Rand. No, you don't. Your statement proves it.

Nick| 6.4.09 @ 4:00PM

Bob,

As usual, you just don't get it.

Over 21 years ago another eminently qualified nominee was rejected by the senate, thanks to RINO's like yourself. That man was Robert Bork.

That should have been the end to the "president is entitled to his choice" tradition. It was for the democrats. But again, thanks to RINO's like you, bubba the pervert got both of his picks and paid no price.

Why must the GOP always fight by the Queensbury rules, when the democrats always fight dirty?

Miss Sotomayor will probably get confirmed, barring anything illegal in her background.

There is no reason B.O. shouldn't get bloodied up in the process and pay a price, rather than the GOP rolling over as usual. And making sure democrats in red states also pay a price for their Yea vote is just smart, strategically.

If the GOP were the Corleone family, the RINO's would be Fredo.

Bob| 6.4.09 @ 4:00PM

borninoc -- please refer to this link:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/

Also, to get a more detailed description of her opinions, use this link:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/?s=sotomayor+opinion

Scotusblog is great and is relatively apolitical. I'm not a lawyer, but I find the detailed analysis interesting.

danfromatlanta| 6.4.09 @ 4:02PM

Marcel, The Republicans will not be able to win back control by adopting the positions of the Democratic Socialist party. We have to differentiate ourselves from all the stupid, nonsensical positions of the DS party. What has harmed our party is becomming more like your party, by following your advice! We have to stand for the right things, and yes, there is right and wrong, good and evil. Moral relativism is what you DS'ers use to justify your lack of moral fiber and willingness to do what you feel exopediant or instantly gratifying. When it comes to truthfulness as evidenced by history, and accurate prediction of what will come, Republicans beat you folks EVERY TIME!

Bob| 6.4.09 @ 4:08PM

Rosencrans - there you go again, calling people names rather than engaging in Talmudic discussion. You seem to be far better at posting articles than making a case. You may not like my logic, but that's only because it makes sense.

Nick -- I don't disagree with you. However, as a former military guy, I believe in overwhelming force to win. Republicans cannot win this for the reasons I've stated. The winning strategy is to follow principle and speak about her intellect, qualifications, and temperament. As a politician, you are entitled to vote against someone if they don't have your ideology. At the end of the day, the winning strategy is to get votes so the Democrats no longer have a majority. Angry people never gain the majority. Learn a lesson here from Reagan.

The way to win the SCOTUS game is to get your presidential candidate elected. You should never go negative on a lost cause if it will cost votes.

Bob| 6.4.09 @ 4:15PM

JG -- If you use the 60% argument, then 100% of Alito's decisions were overturned. The 60% relates to the number of cases that the Supreme Court decided. Sotomayor had 6 cases referred and 3 were overturned. Alito had 2 cases referred ant both were overturned. On average, about 75% of the cases the Supreme Court takes on are overturned. Remember, the Supreme Court only takes a case when they think it may be overturned. Sotomayor produced decisions in about 400 cases. Three cases out of 400 is less than 1% being overturned in total.

Instead of just believing the Limbaugh's of the world, you should to some research to find out the truth.

danfromatlanta| 6.4.09 @ 4:17PM

Bob, you idiot! republicans don't fight against immigration, we fight against ILLEGAL immigration! what has lead to the Republican party's lack of minority support is that we don't pander to them, by trying to buy their votes. because they take the bait, and sell their allegiance to the dumbocraps, they remain poor, or disadvantaged because dumbocraps enable them and give them victim status as an excuse! I also find it amusing that you criticize Republicans for not focusing on limited Democracy! Right, we want MORE Democracy! We want limited government! This is a foreign concept for dumbocraps!

ds80| 6.4.09 @ 4:18PM

gui: "... the destruction of our currency is happening now before our very eyes"

Actually, since 1913 and the creation of the Fed. Since then the dollar has lost ~95% of its purchasing power.

Question: how many pitchforks does it take to toss a banker/financier ?

Bob| 6.4.09 @ 4:25PM

danfromatlanta -- So you are also part of the name calling cabal... Actually, Republicans do fight against immigration as the net effect of their actions are meant to reduce the number of immigrants. Now I actually agree that we should limit immigrants to this country, send back illegal immigrants, and not provide social services to illegal immigrants. But this does not negate the fact that the Republican party benefits from less immigration.

As to my statement of a "limited Democracy", your are correct that I meant "limited government". I'd like to see government out of the incentive business by going to a flat tax, getting rid of departments like Education, and push towards lower entitlements. You can make principled arguments here without anger. As a grandfather, I would like to leave a better world for my progeny.

Nick| 6.4.09 @ 4:40PM

I also am a former military guy. I admire George Washington, who never had overwhelming force but still won. He did it through tenacity and out thinking the the enemy. And Providence, of coarse.

You have to show up to a fight to win it. The GOP has been AWOL for over seven decades when it comes to the supreme court.

ds80| 6.4.09 @ 4:52PM

Bob: please enlighten me - who are "the Limbaugh's of the world" ? Where do they live? What color is their skin? What religion do they profess? How educated are they? Are they married? Do they own businesses? How much do they give to charity? How much do they receive in welfare? How many illegitimate children have they had? How many felony convictions? Are they am oppressed class? A privileged class?

ds80| 6.4.09 @ 5:06PM

Bob - "pro-choice" is the sophist's argument for choosing to kill a defenseless, unborn human.

Pro-"choice" is a coward's position.
Pro-"choice" is a bully's position.

You are either for LIFE, or you are for DEATH.

Joe B| 6.4.09 @ 5:18PM

If she is a supremacist then she must be living in a fantasy. Whites and Asians seem to be fully capable of building countries with advanced economies without the need of diversity, whereas Latins only seem capable of founding banana republics, where almost all the infrastructure is built by European, US, or Asian contractors.

The Race is a joke.

borninoc| 6.4.09 @ 5:25PM

Bob,
I read through your links as well as the Ricci case. It looks like she in fact did not follow precedent but merely accepted the argument made by the city regarding Title VII. It also looks like she disregarded a precedent set by another circuit court as well as a previous SCOTUS decision. These are spelled out in the Supreme Court filing by the Plaintiffs. Her decisions more often than not may seem unreasonable but they don't appear to be made by herself so much as just going along with the group of other justices. One could make a case that she is a mediocre jurist and merely the product of affirmative action. Also, her temperament hardly measures up to the level of a SCOTUS jurist. She isn't a Harriet Meyers, but she doesn't seem to come much higher. She's a shining example of the Peter Principle

borninoc| 6.4.09 @ 5:29PM

Sorry,
May seem "reasonable". Probably a Freudian slip

Hair| 6.4.09 @ 5:30PM

I miss Dave Mathews,
Now onto the main point, Sotomayor's rulings have gone before the Supreme Court a total of 5 soon to be 6 times, and out of those 3 and possibly 4 will be overturned, now the left will point out that this number is low?!? Less than 1% of her total of over 380 decisions!
But this defense does not take into account how often other Circuit Court judges. Over a ten year period? less than once in 400 decisions, most never, some once. So the 60% is as specious as the 1% . What matters is that the Supreme Court has felt a need to review so many of her findings, and then overturn such as they have!
Yes, the Supreme Court has overturned 1% of her decisions, they will not often review 1% of other Judges decisions! She has already been to the Supreme Court, and been turned away!!

Bob| 6.4.09 @ 5:48PM

borninoc -- In the Ricci case she was following the precedent of her circuit court. Lawyers always use case law to make their case and the plaintiffs cases were not entirely adjunct to the point -- i.e., they were not really precedent. But here's the question for you -- if a justice agrees with the majority most of the time, doesn't that make the justice mainstream by definition?

And yes, the argument can be made that she is not an "ideologue" and a leader in the way that Scalia leads the right. But for a Democrat nominee, isn't that a good thing? It means she is not an "activist judge".

If you really think about what you're saying, you must come to the conclusion that she is not an extremist in any sense of the word. In fact, most court watchers I've heard say she's very close to Souter. She is far more accomplished, however, than Harriet Miers -- so you can't really argue with her intellect.

Hair -- perhaps you can give us the link where it shows that Sotomayor has had fewer decisions per year reviewed by the high court than other appellate judges...... I didn't think so....

Bob| 6.4.09 @ 5:51PM

Bornindoc -- By the way, you do not get to be summa cum laude and Yale Law review by affirmative action. And by the way, she graduated as valedictorian of her high school class which would make an affirmative action acceptance at Princeton highly improbable.

Hair| 6.4.09 @ 5:52PM

My apology for the previous post, it barely make sense, I was distracted and hit "Submit before I had time to review and edit. But I do miss Dave Mathews, next to his posts mine would make more sense

Sotomayor's rulings have gone before the Supreme Court a total of 5 soon to be 6 times, and out of those 3 and possibly 4 will be overturned.
Now the left will point out that this number seems low?!? Less than 1% of her total of over 380 decisions!
But this defense does not take into account how often other Circuit Court Judges decisions are called before the Supreme Court, , most never, some once. So the 60% claimed by the right is as specious as the 1% claimed by the left.
What matters is that the Supreme Court has felt a need to review so many of her findings, and then overturn such as they have!
Yes, the Supreme Court has overturned 1% of her decisions, they will not often review 1% of other Judges decisions!
She has already been to the Supreme Court, and has been turned away!!

Marcell| 6.4.09 @ 6:30PM

I wish the opinion peice would be emailed to others until the GOP was forced to deal with these issues changing for the good our country. The first thing comes to my mind is that the GOP is rotten to it's core; even its intelectuals are rotten to their core.

They say believe in capitalism, but a true capitalist would do what it took within the law to be number & that is not what the GOP is all about.

Can you imagine if a business like your favorate resturant marketed themselves with the type of hate that the Republicans & their leadership market their Party with?

& they call themselves the real Americans; the Republican Party is not what real America is all about.

Please spread the word.

P.S. The black Panthers... get a life.

Marcell| 6.4.09 @ 6:36PM

danfromatlanta

The Republican Party doesn't have to be like the Democratic Party to win voters of all races. They would attract others if they showed some real respect & character instead of just talking about it.

A person with real charactor don't have to market its charactor; it would show & glow.

borninoc| 6.4.09 @ 6:40PM

bob,
I don't think she is extremist in her decisions. But, the argument that she is mainstream due to her going along with the group makes little sense. Just look at the 9th circuit and how many times they are overturned. As for High school valedictorian, that really doesn't mean much. My graduating class had 4. In my view, acceptance to Princeton by affirmative action is highly probable as well as Yale Law Review. She definitely is above average but I don't think she is the caliber of person that could/should be found for the appointment. I still think she has the wrong temperament based on her speeches and is the Peter Principle personified.

borninoc| 6.4.09 @ 6:51PM

Marcell,
Love the "good cop/bad cop" propaganda technique. The Republican party needs to change. It needs to respect others and be nice to win. BECAUSE THEY ARE EVIL HATE MONGERING PREJUDICED BACKWARDS BIGOTS!!

Maria| 6.4.09 @ 7:49PM

I went to college, studied law and earned my JD.
I studied and debated case law, I studied and debated the constitution. What did I learn? I learned I had a lot to learn.
Too bad Judge Sotomayer missed that particlar lesson. She is the primary reason I feared B. Hussein Obama's election because the Supreme Court can destroy the United States.

Jack| 6.4.09 @ 7:52PM

borninoc| 6.4.09 @ 6:51PM
Marcell,
Love the "good cop/bad cop" propaganda technique. The Republican party needs to change. It needs to respect others and be nice to win. BECAUSE THEY ARE EVIL HATE MONGERING PREJUDICED BACKWARDS BIGOTS!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somebody missed their after school cookies and milk.

Robert| 6.4.09 @ 8:18PM

For me any person who refuses in his/her writings to affirm the fact that our legislative branch is called the US Congress, not the "North American Congress" is a one world globalist, America-hating supremacist. Sotomayor has referred to US Congress as the North American Congress. That's all it takes for me. She belongs nowhere near the seat of American power.

Mary| 6.4.09 @ 8:50PM

Mr. Tyrrell is absolutely right.

Not to beat a dead horse but Republicans need to "provide a choice, not an echo." Democrats are where they are today not so much because the population agrees with their woolly-headed liberalism -a term I’m sure Eisenhower would have appreciated- but because they involved us in a war that they couldn't or wouldn't defend when the going got tough. They won because our economy collapsed and people, rightly or wrongly, blamed Bush.

True, they’ll have to figure out what they stand for, but that’s what the wilderness is for. And I wouldn’t be too terribly anxious to return from it: "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Free markets: all amelioration of social ills has to be credited to capitalism, entrepreneurship and yes, the bourgeoisie ethic. As Theodore Dalrymple reflects in his essay Why Havana Had To Die: "The bourgeoisie is thus a little like nature: though you pitch it out with a revolution, yet it will in the end return."

The leisure time afforded for reflection and introspection leading to a possiblity for social "science" can’t proceed except upon the heels of more intelligent and accomplished men and a more robust humanity.

Merit: Republicans now have the opportunity to show the democrats and onlookers some bright light by flooding light on Sotomayor and her inferior understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. She’s also on record cheering for Obama after his election, conduct unbecoming a judge who seeks to maintain confidence in her capacity to administer the law impartially.

The Democrats didn’t get where they are by taking all the hills they desired at once.

Republicans can’t break the back of the Teachers Union right now. Piecemeal; they might be able to. Our kids are in decent shape until about 6th grade. That must be when the teaching ends and the propagandizing begins. Competency exams for teachers haven’t resulted in a reason for confidence, across the board. There may come a day when Republicans can do to tenure what they should be able to do to AA with the Ricci case: a custom made refutation of the tribalism being advanced as something wholly other. It’s unholy; may Ricci prevail!

Republicans should make a direct plea to Black Americans: Come home! Whatever you think we’ve done to hurt you; let‘s talk. If you’d rather stay with the democrats, Godspeed! We wish you the best.

They should also not be afraid to lay the illegal immigration issue bare to Hispanic Americans by pointing out that they can understand how Hispanics could feel threatened as illegal immigrants in question are considered part of their larger family. Also point out that the work ethic of the campesino is most admirable, but that a Country that cannot or will not control its borders is courting trouble. Lastly, letting them know that amnesty mocks the legal efforts of every other immigrant who abided by the law, and was granted legal passage.

Let the union between the electorate and the democrats show what it can produce. If it produces justice, prosperity and a sustainable redistribution of wealth and peace, we will all be democrats.

In the meantime, let Republicans understand that there is a point of no return that doesn’t have to stipulate to a national razing. A continual decline can provide ample opportunity for the Nation to still be called America, but become transmogrified into something entirely different than what its Constitution holds that it should be. Become a Northern South America. Anyone with any brains will refuse to trade at such a loss.

Now is the time to fight. I’m really in Senator Sessions corner. I hope he can reclaim his own name here by giving Judge Sotomayor the fair hearing he never received. No kid gloves; treating her like an adult who is poised to ascend to the highest Court in the land.

I don’t think the democrats can take a punch. I’m recommending we force them to. And no Republican has to stoop to the level of democrat chicanery. Fortune favors the bold. Right now the issues favor Republicans. Take a page from both Cheneys and advance.

Mary| 6.4.09 @ 9:15PM

Les Paul‘s godson, I think.

Ridin' high I got tears in my eyes
You know you got to go through hell
Before you get to heaven

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.4.09 @ 9:27PM

Well, I see the paid hack Bob is back launching ad hominem attacks while claiming that's what everyone else is doing.

MarciaC| 6.5.09 @ 1:51AM

Us womenfolk of all races should demand we go back to the good old days when them superior white menfolk ruled everything.

Back when those FF'ers said us blacks and us wimmen were their property.

So what if in fact them white males are still running everything even though now they're the minority.
They must be smarter then us 'cause they've done such a great job killing the 'conomy and blowing up countries based on such very creative lies. Smart white men like Ronnie who supported Apartheid in South Africa - he knew what was what!

Just like the men who run Israel who tried hard to sell nukes to the same white-male-run Apartheid that kept them darkies in their place!

Wars based on lies? Collapsed financial corporations?

Trillions in debt? Yep must be them his-panic women and them black women like Rice that dun it all.

Bella| 6.5.09 @ 2:39AM

Well, MarciaC, I don't think you should be talkin' up the moral superiority of all us wymyn folk so much considering we've killed 51,000,000 of our very own babies since roe v wade. You know?

Men are pips, I agree--but not even those devil dogs have slaughtered millions of their own flesh and blood children slumbering sweetly inside them.

So, Ms. Marcia--think before you use that gaping maw of yours to spew your bogus female superiority pap. Stop yer blamin' and please--stop your bitchin'!

Daisy| 6.5.09 @ 2:54AM

Hey, MarciaC; you don't have to 'go back' to the good old days to be mens' property again. Hell, girl--get your bony butt over to the Middle East right now; those dashing men of chivalry will gladly enslave you.

But first they'll beat you and force you to wear that lovely garment the burkha.

You don't deserve our American men, hosebeast. Our men have fought and died for our freedom, and because of their courage and bitter sacrifices, we American women have the luxury of realizing all of our dreams.

Begone, ungrateful liberal witch--you don't speak for me.

Crackerjackjoe| 6.5.09 @ 6:13AM

I wonder how much these people get paid to come here and run interference for the Obama White House? And you know who I mean.

JG| 6.5.09 @ 9:10AM

"Learn some manners"

I am always amazed at how members of the left think that conservatives have no manners. They are forever talking over the top of conservative commentators. When they don't get their way, ie win an election, there is no end to their viltrolic retoric (Bush stole the election), or the current rather disgusting comments on the killing of Tiller and the awful religious right/Republicans/conservatives etc.

The problem with conservatives is that we sit back too often and take the ranting and raving of these hatefilled, anti-American individules who want to take us to the land of the big Kumbyha/touchy/feely world that exists only in their minds.

Bob| 6.5.09 @ 10:20AM

borninoc -- you said this:

"In my view, acceptance to Princeton by affirmative action is highly probable as well as Yale Law Review. She definitely is above average but I don't think she is the caliber of person that could/should be found for the appointment."

Let us deal with facts. First, there was only one valedictorian in her class in high school. Secondly, it is not unusual that valedictorians get accepted at good schools even if they are not minorities. And thirdly, the assignment to Yale Law review is done on a blind basis, i.e., the selection committee does not know whose work they are reviewing. So your arguments are specious.

As a comparison, we can look at another minority on the court, Clarence Thomas. He graduated cum laude from his college -- not summa cum laude. Cum laude means you have an A-/B+ average. Summa cum laude means you graduated at the top of your class. In addition, I would think that the competition was more fierce at Princeton than Holy Cross. At Yale, Thomas graduated in the middle of the class and did not make law review. By any measure, if you believe in your statements, you would say that Thomas is totally unqualified to be in the Supreme Court.

Daisy| 6.5.09 @ 11:51AM

Hey Bob, if Judge Sotomayor is so friggin' smart, where are her SAT scores and her Law School admission test scores? C'mon, Bob, the good Judge should be bristling to show us all of her supernova bright test results. Right?

I'd like to see Obama's test scores, too. Where are they? Why do all of these Einstein liberals ALWAYS hide their test scores?

You certainly have derided Bush for his grades--turnabout is only fair play, right good old republican, Bob?

JG | 6.5.09 @ 12:33PM

I and any one else can appreciate the fact that someone getsa good grades a finish at the head of their class. Question is..............do they know anything and can they apply what they know correctly.

Our question of this lady is not wheather she is smart or not, it is how she will apply the power we are about to give her.

As Jefferson said "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account. "

Smitty| 6.5.09 @ 12:54PM

'Real Republican' Bob, return to the slimy rock under which you reside, it misses you. Thanks in advance.

Bella| 6.5.09 @ 1:16PM

Actually, I DO want to know how smart Sotomayor is. Especially since libtard trolls like Bob are using her 'intelligence and good grades' as a way to stop our dissent.

What about Obama's vaunted transparency? It's BS like the rest of his schtick.

Bob| 6.5.09 @ 2:03PM

Daisy -- we can only deal with the facts we know. It sounds as if you're jealous of those with intelligence.

JG -- I agree with you that we don't know how she will rule. What we do know is that she has not ruled excessively for minorities and she is conservative when it comes to business cases. Abortion is an open question because she has not ruled on those cases. Those are facts.

Smitty/Bella -- name calling is all it seems you right wing zealots know these days. That's what is wrong with the Republican party -- it's lack of logic and coherence. Please try an intelligent discussion next time if you are able.

Smitty| 6.5.09 @ 2:17PM

Bob, I believe all liars should be flogged--how about you first?

Bob| 6.5.09 @ 2:50PM

Smitty -- name calling again... Is that all you right wing extremists know how to do? By the way, how do you define a lie? I know -- stating factual information that you don't want to hear. Do you have a statue of the three monkeys on your desk?

Daisy| 6.5.09 @ 3:16PM

Bob, logic and coherence in an argument are irrelevant when one side is deceitful. You are just a smart liar; that's why we dismiss you and your silly statements.

Daisy| 6.5.09 @ 3:23PM

Bob, you said that republicans use racism by finding ways of minimizing the minority vote and that we are against immigration--both bald-faced lies.

Bob| 6.5.09 @ 3:41PM

Daisy -- don't be so naive. Both sides use dirty tricks to win elections. Here's a book by a Republican:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Rig-Election-Confessions-ebook/dp/B0012ZKZL6/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

I would also read the article by Marcus Epstein who talks about the Hispanic vote from a conservative perspective.

So Daisy, before you swallow any more KoolAid from Fox, Rush, and TAS, become educated.

To be honest, I dislike the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum. I believe both sides are unethical and will do anything it takes to win. So I challenge you, Daisy, to put on your learning hat, read both sides of the political spectrum, separate facts from rhetoric, and come to intelligent conclusions. You won't find balanced facts either at TAS or Huffington/The Nation. Read both sides and don't be a lemming....

Daisy| 6.5.09 @ 4:45PM

Bob, I can only speak for myself; and I know I'm not a racist and neither is the party to which I belong.

Obviously, you know where you stand--if that means you're a bigot, so be it--but don't project your racial intolerance onto me.

Bob| 6.5.09 @ 4:59PM

Daisy -- since when did I call YOU a racist? I have no reason to believe you are. Nor do I believe the Republican party is racist. However, the party does use racial politics to win elections just as the Democrats use racial politics in a different way. The Democrats use race to pander to minorities and the Republicans pander to whites through their activities. The only thing I'm pointing out is that the Republicans will lose using this technique because minority populations are growing. Both parties show differing forms of racism. So just deal with reality. I personally don't like the way either side uses race, but I refuse drink the KoolAid.

Daisy| 6.5.09 @ 5:36PM

Your perspective gives you away, Bob. I can tell you're a liberal because you group people together by race and/or gender. Liberals like you use envy as the basis of your class warfare strategy to pit people against one another. It's the only way you can win (with ACORN election fraud), because you have no lofty principles like Conservatives.

No wonder Socialism has never worked--it's based on the lowest emotions dwelling within the human heart--fear and envy.

I'd rather encourage the best in us, Bob; our commonality as American individuals and our dreams to realize our full potential in life. I want success for everybody; and not at the expense of others.

In nutshell, Bob, I'm a Conservative; a dreamer who focuses on the possibilities--you're a Liberal; a cynic who focuses on limits.

Your way has never worked and it never will. Liberalism/Socialism is a loser.

Mary| 6.5.09 @ 6:48PM

This is a good read.

But conservatives and like-minded centrists can win the political debate if they focus not on buzzwords but on in-depth, civil discourse about the very big issue on which Sotomayor and her liberal supporters are most at odds -- and the conservative justices most in tune -- with the vast majority of Americans.

That issue is racially preferential affirmative action. By this, I mean the many forms of supposedly benign discrimination against whites and Asians that have been engineered over the past 45 years to advance blacks and Hispanics in the workforce, in college admissions, and in government contracting.

The long-standing public disapproval of such preferences was documented yet again by a major Quinnipiac University poll released on June 3, showing that American voters, by a lopsided margin, want them abolished.

Initiated in the 1960s as a temporary expedient, racial preferences may well become permanent if a Justice Sotomayor is eventually joined on the Court by a like-minded successor to one of the Court's conservatives. (The justice Sotomayor would replace, David Souter, also supports preferences.)

The now-famous New Haven, Conn., firefighter case is a perfect symbol of how the sort of preferences she supports can operate as raw racial discrimination.

Sotomayor voted with two other judges last year to uphold the city's denial of promotions to white firefighters who had studied hard for months and done well on a scrupulously fair test of job-related skills. But because no African-Americans did well enough to qualify, the city decided that nobody would be promoted, claiming that it feared a "disparate impact" lawsuit by low-scoring blacks. (See May 30 column.)

The Quinnipiac poll showed that respondents, by well over 3-to-1, want the Supreme Court to overturn the Appellate panel's decision. And although the poll shows that this has not yet hurt Sotomayor's popularity much, the case will become more salient later this month. The justices are widely expected to reverse the panel's decision.

None of this is to suggest that the nominee's racially preferential actions put her outside the liberal Democratic mainstream. Quite the contrary. Most liberals are addicted to racial preferences and identity politics.

But this puts liberal Democrats very far out of sync with the overwhelming majority of Americans, including us centrists. President Obama made noises during the campaign that seemed to suggest he understood this. But the Sotomayor nomination -- for all her inspiring accomplishments, powerful intellect, and devotion to the underprivileged -- looks like a strong Obama endorsement of the racial preferences and identity politics that she has supported.

The voters, however, by 55 percent to 36 percent, called for abolishing "affirmative-action programs that give preferences to blacks and other minorities in hiring, promotions, and college admissions" in the new Quinnipiac poll.

The 3,000-plus respondents also wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Sotomayor's New Haven firefighter decision by a whopping 71-19 percent.

The Ricci case is so very important; I can't repeat that enough times. And the Republicans do have a great opportunity here.

They don't have the power to derail her confirmation, but they do have the power to make Affirmative Action proponents have to defend the indefensible.

Minorities will no doubt win the day, if they choose to vote themselves give-aways or do-overs or restitution or however the AA appropriation is described.

The problem for minorites is that a solid economic bedrock must always undergird this game of perpetual catch-up. If that falls apart minority will rise against minority. And if a particular minority rises to the top of the middle class they will begin to look at things differently too.

Inter-minority harmony does not exist. If you've ever lived in the heart of a City you know that. Combining forces against a common enemy (the white guy) provides cohesion, but that will come to an end. And that's why AA is a temporary solution to a permanent dilemma. And it's likely that the Black man will, once again, find himself on the losing side.

Bob| 6.6.09 @ 9:21AM

Daisy -- grouping by voting block is a way BOTH parties deal with elections. There is a process called microtargeting that the Republicans invented to do this. The Democrats were better in this last election at taking microtargeting to another level. You group by all sorts of demographics including background, income level, educational level, gender, etc. You are naive to believe that "conservatives" don't use these techniques -- they invented them.

You are also kidding yourself into believing your a "dreamer". I don't see that in any of your posts. All I see is someone who "limits"/judges someone else on a line in one of their speeches. Most likely, I am more conservative than you fiscally and militarily, but I am clearly a libertarian on social issues, i.e., I want the government out of social issues like abortion and gay marriage. My guess is that you don't know what a true conservative is beyond the religious component.

Daisy| 6.6.09 @ 7:04PM

You don't know me at all, Bozo. But I've got your number, libtard troll.

You're an angry fascist liberal, David Mathews/Bob --you reek with anger. Borrrriiing.

Mary| 6.6.09 @ 8:01PM

The Judge:

"JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel ... we're not suggesting that unqualified people be hired. The city's not suggesting that. All right? But there is a difference between where you score on the test and how many openings you have. And to the extent that there's an adverse impact on one group over the other, so that the first seven who are going to be hired only because of the vagrancies [sic] of the vacancies at that moment, not because you're unqualified--the pass rate is the pass rate--all right? But if your test is always going to put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they're never ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn't the city have an opportunity to try and look and see if it can develop that?"

In case link doesn't work: http://tinyurl.com/ndtyku

Daisy| 6.7.09 @ 9:00AM

We may target certain groups who agree with our Conservative principles but we do not encourage and foment envy and pit people against one another.

You liberals invented class-warfare in this country--like all good Marxists. It's pretty much all you've got; that and your lies. Another reason for your creation of ACORN: You need deception to win.

Ravenna| 6.7.09 @ 1:36PM

Deceit and deception--the D in Democrat.

Bob| 6.7.09 @ 2:41PM

Well, Daisy. If you read the posts, you'll see that you're the one with the anger problem. Can't you be any more creative than to use the term "libtard troll"?

Daisy| 6.7.09 @ 9:08PM

If it fits--wear it, libtard troll--in good humor, of course.

george| 7.29.09 @ 5:05AM

Louis Vuitton Monogram , commonly referred to as

Louis Vuitton Monogram Denim handbags, or sometimes shortened to

Louis Vuitton Monogram Denim has become one of the most

Louis Vuitton Riveting bags luxury brands.

lv online storelove

louis vuitton storesgood

luis vuitton online storei like

louis vuitton melville reporter usa online storesnice

jiner| 8.10.09 @ 11:18PM

Nike Air jordan
Dunk SB Shoes
Dunk SB Shoes
NBA Basketball Shoes
Cheap Nike shoes
Air jordan 23
cheap jordan shoes
air max tn
dunk shoes

s| 8.20.09 @ 3:54AM

Cheap Jordan,Cheap Jordan shoes,Retro Jordan,Air Yeezy Shoes,Supra shoes,Kanye West Shoes Jordan shoes,New Jordans,Air Yeezy,Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Retro Jordan, Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Dunk High,True Religion Jeans,New Air Force Ones Air Yeezy Shoe,Supra Shoes,Retro Jordan,Creative Recreation,Nike Dunks Nike Air Yeezy True Religion,Air Jordan Shoes,Air Shox,Air Max,Dunk Shoes.Air Jordan,Cheap Jordans,Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,Air Jordan Shoes

Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 11:04PM

Very good article written byWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
ah