Dane Cook has fresher material than Sotomayor.

/waiting for the whargarbl on how Congressional Quarterly is a right-wing shill mouthpiece

I would hope that a wise Latino man with the richness of his experiences would, more often than not, write better speeches than a Latina woman.

And Obama & Gibbs might as well not comment about this at all, going forward.

"I'm sure she would have restated it."

"I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor."

thing is, shes probably right in what she said.

Stoj: And Obama & Gibbs might as well not comment about this at all, going forward.

"I'm sure she would have restated it.""

Which she did, several times.

I don't care about the speech, but Gibbs' handling of it sucks. Whose bright idea was it to make that guy Press Secretary?

*glares at Obama*

So is this still "lack of context" time? Or can we now legitimately look into whether or not this is a pattern of behavior?

... and this all matters, uh... why? The GOP can't stop it, and their opposition only lessens their popularity in the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

Perhaps it would be wise for them to shut up for a change.

bronyaur1: ... and this all matters, uh... why? The GOP can't stop it, and their opposition only lessens their popularity in the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

Except that presupposes that all Hispanics will ultimately rally to the defense of another Hispanic based solely on her race/ethnicity.

Besides, if she truly, honestly believes that a wise old Latina judge could make better decisions than a wise old white male judge, just based solely on her gender and race (the only two characteristics that change in her example), then that type of judicial philosophy should be condemned and I'd hope that everyone could agree on that.

I'd love to see the remarks she made in 2002 and 2003 where she allegedly repeated the statements for context.

Realpolitik420: bronyaur1: ... and this all matters, uh... why? The GOP can't stop it, and their opposition only lessens their popularity in the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

Except that presupposes that all Hispanics will ultimately rally to the defense of another Hispanic based solely on her race/ethnicity.

Besides, if she truly, honestly believes that a wise old Latina judge could make better decisions than a wise old white male judge, just based solely on her gender and race (the only two characteristics that change in her example), then that type of judicial philosophy should be condemned and I'd hope that everyone could agree on that.

I'd love to see the remarks she made in 2002 and 2003 where she allegedly repeated the statements for context.

I'm pretty sure context is out the window here. This isn't a misstatement anymore, it's now a pattern of behavior and a metric of how she adjudicates.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm pretty sure context is out the window here.

It'd be much easier to tell if the context from the other speeches showed that she wasn't specifically talking in the context of discrimination cases, which is the response I hear from most people who assert that she really meant "different" rather than "better".

Either way, it would be nice to have the full texts of the other speeches too, if for nothing else than completeness sake.

I really hope that it's not a metric of how she adjudicates, as its antithetical to everything she's supposed to uphold as a judge.

joshwill: thing is, shes probably right in what she said.

There's some famous quote about "content of their character," but no one remembers it, I guess.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So is this still "lack of context" time? Or can we now legitimately look into whether or not this is a pattern of behavior?

Depends on the context of the other speeches.

Realpolitik420: It'd be much easier to tell if the context from the other speeches showed that she wasn't specifically talking in the context of discrimination cases

Well, the most famous instance was in the context of discrimination cases, which lends me to assume the others are.

elchip: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So is this still "lack of context" time? Or can we now legitimately look into whether or not this is a pattern of behavior?

Depends on the context of the other speeches.

Realpolitik420: It'd be much easier to tell if the context from the other speeches showed that she wasn't specifically talking in the context of discrimination cases

Well, the most famous instance was in the context of discrimination cases, which lends me to assume the others are.

If that's the case, then she sure likes to talk about discrimination of women and people of Latin origin.

Not saying that she isn't qualified to speak on the subject, but that's an interesting focus to say the least.

Just like a woman... even if she's wrong, she'll fall back on "feminine wisdom" to justify her action... no matter who it harms... truth included.

So... shut up biatch. Go fix me a turkey pot pie.

joshwill: thing is, shes probably right in what she said.

Maybe we should have separate SCs for each type of case, made up entirely of one ethnicity or another.

The white SC could hear cases where they are deemed to reach better conclusions, the black SC could hear cases where their experiences will allow them to reach better conclusions, etc.

Stoj: the black SC could hear cases where their experiences will allow them to reach better conclusions



Imagine reading the opinions.

Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. ... And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

~Alito, at confirmation hearing

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/antonin-scalia-judges-mak_n_208531.htm l

Donde esta mi pantalones!!?!?!?

Realpolitik420: bronyaur1: ... and this all matters, uh... why? The GOP can't stop it, and their opposition only lessens their popularity in the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

Except that presupposes that all Hispanics will ultimately rally to the defense of another Hispanic based solely on her race/ethnicity.

Besides, if she truly, honestly believes that a wise old Latina judge could make better decisions than a wise old white male judge, just based solely on her gender and race (the only two characteristics that change in her example), then that type of judicial philosophy should be condemned and I'd hope that everyone could agree on that.

I'd love to see the remarks she made in 2002 and 2003 where she allegedly repeated the statements for context.

They will support her because she is infinitely qualified.


Everytime you dipshiats talk, you harm your party. You are like my-ex though, you are pathological incapable of just shutting the fark up. I have no idea how the Republican party survived as long as it did.

If a white man had said this, none of the Fark left would be asking for the context it was taken out of? What if she said that Latino women are smarter than black men?

PascalsGhost: she is infinitely qualified.

... don't be ridiculous. At this point, this is not even an overstatement, that's just a dumb one.

Wise Latina women are pregnant and in the kitchen making tortillas.

PascalsGhost:
Everytime you dipshiats talk, you harm your party. You are like my-ex though, you are pathological incapable of just shutting the fark up. I have no idea how the Republican party survived as long as it did.

Why would you participate in the Fark politics thread if all you want is us damned right wing crazies to shut up? Aren't there near limitless lefty echo chamber websites where you could enjoy such peaceful harmony?

Pascal, this is called "foolishness".

well, how about eminently?

Tatsuma: PascalsGhost: she is infinitely qualified.

... don't be ridiculous. At this point, this is not even an overstatement, that's just a dumb one.

Bucky Katt: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. ... And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

~Alito, at confirmation hearing

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/antonin-scalia-judges-mak_n_208531.htm l

Bu-bu-bu-bu-uhhhh Jefferson?

Tatsuma: PascalsGhost: she is infinitely qualified.

... don't be ridiculous. At this point, this is not even an overstatement, that's just a dumb one.

How is she not qualified. Not jewish enough? Seriously, how is she not qualified. This should be hilarious.

PascalsGhost: Realpolitik420: bronyaur1: ... and this all matters, uh... why? The GOP can't stop it, and their opposition only lessens their popularity in the fastest-growing segment of the electorate.

Except that presupposes that all Hispanics will ultimately rally to the defense of another Hispanic based solely on her race/ethnicity.

Besides, if she truly, honestly believes that a wise old Latina judge could make better decisions than a wise old white male judge, just based solely on her gender and race (the only two characteristics that change in her example), then that type of judicial philosophy should be condemned and I'd hope that everyone could agree on that.

I'd love to see the remarks she made in 2002 and 2003 where she allegedly repeated the statements for context.

They will support her because she is infinitely qualified.


Everytime you dipshiats talk, you harm your party. You are like my-ex though, you are pathological incapable of just shutting the fark up. I have no idea how the Republican party survived as long as it did.

Why would you assume that everyone voicing concern over this woman's opinion is Republican? They have been pretty all over these questionable quotes on NPR the last few days and I would highly doubt many Republicans listen to NPR.

Why do you hate public radio so much you fascist?

Really though, her judicial opinions seem to support a rather unbiased view on Race, Sex, and Discrimination but it is most definitely a concern when a SCOTUS nominee has repeatedly and often stated on the record and publicly that she believes that Female Latinas are of superior wisdom and judgement than White Males.

I think the question you should be asking is, "Why am I so much a partisan that I cannot possible use my brain long enough to think that maybe, in fact, it is an issue that a SCOTUS nominee makes racist and discriminatory comments on a regular basis?"

Nemo's Brother: If a white man had said this, none of the Fark left would be asking for the context it was taken out of? What if she said that Latino women are smarter than black men?

Any government form that asks you to specify your race gives you a number of choices. None of them are "Hispanic" or "Latino." There's a separate question for ethnicity in which you specify whether or not you are of Hispanic or Latino ancestry. (And apparently, the 2010 census will more explicitly specify that Hispanic is not a race).

But that's an awful pedantic argument, so let's go a little further.

For starters: A plurality of people identifying themselves as "Hispanic" on the 2000 census identified their race as "white," followed by "some other race" -- which is technically incorrect, since most of these people are likely Mestizos, or multiracial people of white (usually Spanish/Portuguese) and Native American heritage.

In other words, both Benicio del Toro...



...and Hugo Chavez...



...are unquestionably Hispanic, despite the fact that they are clearly of different racial backgrounds.

Okay. So if she's not racist, they'd say, she may very well be prejudiced against non-Hispanics.

One must wonder, though... if she was a qualified Ukrainian-American judge, and said the following regarding issues of government oppression...

I would hope that a wise man from a former Soviet republic with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than an American male who hasn't lived that life.

...would there be nearly as much controversy? I think not. Is all of this brouhaha over Sotomayor genuine outrage from the right... or projection?

After all, are "former Soviets" and "Hispanics" that different? The first consists of people from countries formed from the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The second consists of people from countries formed from the dissolution of the Spanish Empire.

Adding weight to the analogy is the fact that not all people from Soviet republics are of the same race, either, as the current presidents of Russia and Kyrgyzstan demonstrate.

I am not a right winger.

Sotomayer is both a sexist and a racist.

elchip: I don't care about the speech, but Gibbs' handling of it sucks. Whose bright idea was it to make that guy Press Secretary?

*glares at Obama*



I told everyone in November he was going to staff his administartion with a bunch of idiots. There are some slim pickens in the talent pool on the left. The right too, but it is worse with the Dems.


Gibbs is pathetic.

pxsteel: I am not a right winger.

Sotomayer is both a sexist and a racist.

You're just a moran?

At this point, I'm numb to this shiat. I no longer care enough to fight this WHARRGARBL.

Shryke: PascalsGhost:
Everytime you dipshiats talk, you harm your party. You are like my-ex though, you are pathological incapable of just shutting the fark up. I have no idea how the Republican party survived as long as it did.

Why would you participate in the Fark politics thread if all you want is us damned right wing crazies to shut up? Aren't there near limitless lefty echo chamber websites where you could enjoy such peaceful harmony?

Pascal, this is called "foolishness".

Yawn. Wake me when the Republicans have anything close to the kind of power they'd need to prevent her appointment to the Court. This is nothing but hot air. There's not a chance in hell that she won't be confirmed.

Shryke: PascalsGhost:
Everytime you dipshiats talk, you harm your party. You are like my-ex though, you are pathological incapable of just shutting the fark up. I have no idea how the Republican party survived as long as it did.

Why would you participate in the Fark politics thread if all you want is us damned right wing crazies to shut up? Aren't there near limitless lefty echo chamber websites where you could enjoy such peaceful harmony?

Pascal, this is called "foolishness".

Fair enough. I apologize. Everytime a farker says shiat like this, it just provides teh LOLZ. Everytime a Republican That Matters says shiat like this, it harms the party.

elchip: Any government form that asks you to specify your race gives you a number of choices. None of them are "Hispanic" or "Latino."



I debunked this yesterday, when you posted the same thing.. yesterday.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Or can we now legitimately look into whether or not this is a pattern of behavior?

Don't worry, SCOTUS Blog already looked into whether she had a pattern of racial preference.

Link (new window)

Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.

Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent's point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.

Of the roughly 75 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor dissented 2 times. In Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642 (1999), she dissented from the affirmance of the district court's order appointing a guardian for the plaintiff, an issue unrelated to race. In Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 195 F.3d 134 (1999), she would have allowed a black kindergartner to proceed with the claim that he was discriminated against in a school transfer. A third dissent did not relate to race discrimination: In Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002), she dissented from the majority's holding that the NYPD could fire a white employee for distributing racist materials.

As noted in the post below, Judge Sotomayor was twice on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.

The numbers relating to unpublished opinions continued to hold as well. In the roughly 55 cases in which the panel affirmed district court decisions rejecting a claim of employment discrimination or retaliation, the panel published its opinion or order only 5 times.

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

Her critics keep saying this quote is the smoke showing that we need to be looking for fire. A review of her career shows no such fire.

PascalsGhost: Tatsuma: PascalsGhost: she is infinitely qualified.

... don't be ridiculous. At this point, this is not even an overstatement, that's just a dumb one.

How is she not qualified. Not jewish enough? Seriously, how is she not qualified. This should be hilarious.

The adjective "infinitely" is a bit silly, you got to admit.

1derful: Donde esta mi pantalones!!?!?!?

Yo tengo tres pollos en mi ropas.

PascalsGhost: How is she not qualified. Not jewish enough?

"Dumb" really was a wise choice of word. Good job, mysel

Contents of a Space Wasp's stomach: Why would you assume that everyone voicing concern over this woman's opinion is Republican? They have been pretty all over these questionable quotes on NPR the last few days and I would highly doubt many Republicans listen to NPR.

There are not many outside the right that accuse her of racism. It is an outrageous claim.

Why do you hate public radio so much you fascist?

Cause its boring as hell. Less international economic news, more Skynard.

Really though, her judicial opinions seem to support a rather unbiased view on Race, Sex, and Discrimination but it is most definitely a concern when a SCOTUS nominee has repeatedly and often stated on the record and publicly that she believes that Female Latinas are of superior wisdom and judgement than White Males.

That is all that matters. At least you've examined them to see.


I think the question you should be asking is, "Why am I so much a partisan that I cannot possible use my brain long enough to think that maybe, in fact, it is an issue that a SCOTUS nominee makes racist and discriminatory comments on a regular basis?"

I attack the right, i'm a partisan. I attack Obama, I'm a partisan.

Her comments aren't insulting or racist to anybody but the worried constantly oppressed white male.

She is going to be confirmed.

No reason why we can't call her out on her statements, it is a free country.

I think what she said was completely retarded, which was surprising considering she is a wise Latino woman and should have come to a better conclusion.

Any government form that asks you to specify your race gives you a number of choices. None of them are "Hispanic" or "Latino."


When my friend moved to Baltimore from South Africa, she went to the DMV and filled out a form, and checked 'African American'.

Hilarity ensued. She's white.

PascalsGhost: Fair enough. I apologize. Everytime a farker says shiat like this, it just provides teh LOLZ. Everytime a Republican That Matters says shiat like this, it harms the party.

Your continued concern for our party is heart-warming, Pascal.

And I'd offer a piece of advice: avoid posting stuff like "my ex wouldn't stfu". Easily turned against you.

Phil Herup: elchip: Any government form that asks you to specify your race gives you a number of choices. None of them are "Hispanic" or "Latino."



I debunked this yesterday, when you posted the same thing.. yesterday.

Phil Herup: I debunked this yesterday, when you posted the same thing.. yesterday.

You did no such thing. All you said was "Umm, Hispanic is a race."

pxsteel: I am not a right winger.

Sotomayer is both a sexist and a racist.

This. All of it.

I understand the desire for diversity in the court but for the argument that 170 something justices have been white males would require that in this society, we had a choice in picking them.

I'm not saying a white man would do better or worse but when someone goes out of their way to make public comments about a racial group being superior than another racial group is completely asinine.

imbrial: well, how about eminently?

Tatsuma: PascalsGhost: she is infinitely qualified.

... don't be ridiculous. At this point, this is not even an overstatement, that's just a dumb one.

I would say she seems quite qualified. For "eminently" I would expect to see something rather impressive (not saying she hasn't, but if such a thing were known about, questions about her qualifications would be answered with that instead of "17 years, bi-partisan appointments"). Infinitely is just a stupid thing to say.

Nemo's Brother: If a white man had said this, none of the Fark left would be asking for the context it was taken out of? What if she said that Latino women are smarter than black men?

If an old white man said that his privileged upbringing and education made him better to decide cases most would argue that he is disconnected from those events of the everyday person.

Being latina and a woman she may have more experience with discrimination or woman's rights on a personal level, but that does not make her better to decide those cases nor any worse.

There still hasnt been a lot of commentary on the substance of her rulings and opinions through the years to give any true idea of her.

Mostly it has been what she has said in speeches and the like where she claims she is a great judge because of her background. I think almost everyone would argue they are good parents/professionals/whatever because of their background....