Corporations behind efforts to label Sotomayor ‘racist’

[Coyote]

those two sites are vastly different
the one on duke is only looking for things to make him look worse, and the sotomayer one is just looking for quoptes to make her look good
the point of view is vastly different to the point where it would be useless to explore

When I searched I just searched for name + quotes. Here I searched for "racist sotomayor quotes" and came up with this:

Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Racist Quote

I'm not finding any other quotes that are racist - even in biased sources (unlike David Duke who seems to have left an entire trail of litter).

and then, there is the actual full quote being bandied about:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

Doesn't reading the entire passage change the meaning that her detractors are trying to put forth with just a snippet?

i'm only saying what she said was racist
and it is
nothing more
david duke is an asshole
nuff said

 

[manifold]

Hello folks, let's not overlook the obvious shall we?

She IS racist.

Now tell me why that's a big deal?

Just because you believe it to be doesn't make it "fact". That's the "big deal".

Whether or not anyone is racist is never a matter of fact. In this case it is simply the truth, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt by her non-decision in Ricci v DeStefano (the New Haven firefighers case). But still, not reason enough to disqualify her IMO.

 

[Coyote]

Hello folks, let's not overlook the obvious shall we?

She IS racist.

Now tell me why that's a big deal?

Just because you believe it to be doesn't make it "fact". That's the "big deal".

Whether or not anyone is racist is never a matter of fact. In this case it is simply the truth, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt by her non-decision in Ricci v DeStefano (the New Haven firefighers case). But still, not reason enough to disqualify her IMO.

I agree it's never a fact - but, in terms of Ricci v DeStefano - I don't agree that makes her a "racist". It's a complicated case where the law has contradictory interpretations.

Her record shows she rules more often against the plaintiff in discrimination cases.

 

[Ravi]

Hello folks, let's not overlook the obvious shall we?

She IS racist.

Now tell me why that's a big deal?

Just because you believe it to be doesn't make it "fact". That's the "big deal".

Whether or not anyone is racist is never a matter of fact. In this case it is simply the truth, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt by her non-decision in Ricci v DeStefano (the New Haven firefighers case). But still, not reason enough to disqualify her IMO.

Jeesh, I see you've once again depended on the liberal media to inform your opinion. Big surprise.

There was nothing racist about her decision in that case.

 

[manifold]

Just because you believe it to be doesn't make it "fact". That's the "big deal".

Whether or not anyone is racist is never a matter of fact. In this case it is simply the truth, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt by her non-decision in Ricci v DeStefano (the New Haven firefighers case). But still, not reason enough to disqualify her IMO.

Jeesh, I see you've once again depended on the liberal media to inform your opinion. Big surprise.

There was nothing racist about her decision in that case.

I can't blame you for betting on the fastest horse, but in this instance he came up lame.

I've actually educated myself about that case and I believe her non-decision to be racist. But I'm certainly not fool enough to believe I can convince you to see it my way nor do I care.

I still think she is a qualified candidate.

 

[Ravi]

No problem. Techie and I actually agreed on this, not that I wasn't already convinced.

I know you have your mental blocks.

 

[manifold]

This is simply an example of the left having one of their own finely honed political weapons used against them. For years the left has sucessfully peddled the notion that racism = bad, end of story. I rejected that over-simplistic notion when peddled by the left and I reject it now being peddled by the right.

It for sure doesn't surprise me to see folks like Ravi change their tune depending on which side is doing the peddling. And while I'm on the subject, I have to give props to Dive Con for being decidedly non-hypocritical on the matter.

 

[Ravi]

This is simply an example of the left having one of their own finely honed political weapons used against them. For years the left has sucessfully peddled the notion that racism = bad, end of story. I rejected that over-simplistic notion when peddled by the left and I reject it now being peddled by the right.

It for sure doesn't surprise me to see folks like Ravi change their tune depending on which side is doing the peddling. And while I'm on the subject, I have to give props to Dive Con for being decidedly non-hypocritical on the matter.

You can't even explain why you believe she was racist.

You know who I think is racist? Obama's former pastor.

Did you? Never saw you say you did. Methinks you are full of shit but that hardly surprises me.

 

[manifold]

This is simply an example of the left having one of their own finely honed political weapons used against them. For years the left has sucessfully peddled the notion that racism = bad, end of story. I rejected that over-simplistic notion when peddled by the left and I reject it now being peddled by the right.

It for sure doesn't surprise me to see folks like Ravi change their tune depending on which side is doing the peddling. And while I'm on the subject, I have to give props to Dive Con for being decidedly non-hypocritical on the matter.

You can't even explain why you believe she was racist.

You know who I think is racist? Obama's former pastor.

Did you? Never saw you say you did. Methinks you are full of shit but that hardly surprises me.

Of course Wright is a racist. Anyone who says otherwise is even more intellectually dishonest than you... and that's saying something.

 

[DiveCon]

This is simply an example of the left having one of their own finely honed political weapons used against them. For years the left has sucessfully peddled the notion that racism = bad, end of story. I rejected that over-simplistic notion when peddled by the left and I reject it now being peddled by the right.

It for sure doesn't surprise me to see folks like Ravi change their tune depending on which side is doing the peddling. And while I'm on the subject, I have to give props to Dive Con for being decidedly non-hypocritical on the matter.

the constitution didnt set any qualifications for justices other than being sellected by POTUS and confirmed by the senate
it doesnt even require they be lawyers

so, unless there is some major crime that comes out i say she should be confirmned

she'll still only be one of 9 on the court

 

[Ravi]

Just because you believe it to be doesn't make it "fact". That's the "big deal".

Whether or not anyone is racist is never a matter of fact. In this case it is simply the truth, demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt by her non-decision in Ricci v DeStefano (the New Haven firefighers case). But still, not reason enough to disqualify her IMO.

I agree it's never a fact - but, in terms of Ricci v DeStefano - I don't agree that makes her a "racist". It's a complicated case where the law has contradictory interpretations.

Her record shows she rules more often against the plaintiff in discrimination cases.

She ruled on whether the city was correct in throwing out the test because it violated title vii. It did violate title vii. I don't see how she could have ruled any other way, especially since the case didn't question the validity of title vii.

 

[Ravi]

This is simply an example of the left having one of their own finely honed political weapons used against them. For years the left has sucessfully peddled the notion that racism = bad, end of story. I rejected that over-simplistic notion when peddled by the left and I reject it now being peddled by the right.

It for sure doesn't surprise me to see folks like Ravi change their tune depending on which side is doing the peddling. And while I'm on the subject, I have to give props to Dive Con for being decidedly non-hypocritical on the matter.

You can't even explain why you believe she was racist.

You know who I think is racist? Obama's former pastor.

Did you? Never saw you say you did. Methinks you are full of shit but that hardly surprises me.

Of course Wright is a racist. Anyone who says otherwise is even more intellectually dishonest than you... and that's saying something.

Calling someone a racist simply because you disagree with how they ruled is lame, even for you. I suppose you can't help yourself, the plantiffs were white, she is brown...of course she ruled based on race.

 

[Ravi]

This is simply an example of the left having one of their own finely honed political weapons used against them. For years the left has sucessfully peddled the notion that racism = bad, end of story. I rejected that over-simplistic notion when peddled by the left and I reject it now being peddled by the right.

It for sure doesn't surprise me to see folks like Ravi change their tune depending on which side is doing the peddling. And while I'm on the subject, I have to give props to Dive Con for being decidedly non-hypocritical on the matter.

the constitution didnt set any qualifications for justices other than being sellected by POTUS and confirmed by the senate
it doesnt even require they be lawyers

so, unless there is some major crime that comes out i say she should be confirmned

she'll still only be one of 9 on the court

That's true, and under those circumstance I believe even David Duke would qualify.

However, calling someone a racist is a rather serious and damaging charge. Not that I'd hold it against idiots on a message board but I'd certainly hold it against politicians.

 

[KittenKoder]

Too much irony to address in this thread, so here's the simple reply to it all:

Look in the mirror, because I see a LOT of pots.

 

[DiveCon]

This is simply an example of the left having one of their own finely honed political weapons used against them. For years the left has sucessfully peddled the notion that racism = bad, end of story. I rejected that over-simplistic notion when peddled by the left and I reject it now being peddled by the right.

It for sure doesn't surprise me to see folks like Ravi change their tune depending on which side is doing the peddling. And while I'm on the subject, I have to give props to Dive Con for being decidedly non-hypocritical on the matter.

the constitution didnt set any qualifications for justices other than being sellected by POTUS and confirmed by the senate
it doesnt even require they be lawyers

so, unless there is some major crime that comes out i say she should be confirmned

she'll still only be one of 9 on the court

That's true, and under those circumstance I believe even David Duke would qualify.

However, calling someone a racist is a rather serious and damaging charge. Not that I'd hold it against idiots on a message board but I'd certainly hold it against politicians.

maybe if someone could positively identify an instance where her racism affected her judgement in a case it might have some bearing, till they do, i wont bother

i thought what the dems did with judges like Janice Rodgers Brown was dispicable
i dont want that done for payback either

 

[manifold]

You can't even explain why you believe she was racist.

You know who I think is racist? Obama's former pastor.

Did you? Never saw you say you did. Methinks you are full of shit but that hardly surprises me.

Of course Wright is a racist. Anyone who says otherwise is even more intellectually dishonest than you... and that's saying something.

Calling someone a racist simply because you disagree with how they ruled is lame, even for you. I suppose you can't help yourself, the plantiffs were white, she is brown...of course she ruled based on race.

Right, because one's actions have nothing to do with who they are.

 

[manifold]

calling someone a racist is a rather serious and damaging charge.

Only according to blind slaves to politically correctness.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

calling someone a racist is a rather serious and damaging charge.

Only according to blind slaves to politically correctness.

It is a serious charge. I do believe that mostly blind slaves of political correctness lob that charge at others, but to deny the charge is serious or carries serious consequences is to deny reality.

 

[manifold]

I disagree with that generalization. The charge has been levied against many many people who've not suffered the slightest adverse consequence as a result. In fact, it's been a veritable boon for some.

 

[Ravi]

Of course Wright is a racist. Anyone who says otherwise is even more intellectually dishonest than you... and that's saying something.

Calling someone a racist simply because you disagree with how they ruled is lame, even for you. I suppose you can't help yourself, the plantiffs were white, she is brown...of course she ruled based on race.

Right, because one's actions have nothing to do with who they are.

Of course they do. But ruling that the city was allowed to throw out the results of a test because said test violated title vii is a rational ruling. In your mind, she can't be rational because she's brown. I wouldn't label her the racist here.