uncollectedminds

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Angry Black Lady Chronicles

Sonia Sotomayor: Just Too Damn Puerto Rican to be a Good Judge

ts-sotomayor

This shit is ridiculous, y’all.  In the same 2001 speech in Berkeley during which Sotomayor made the controversial statement:

“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.”

she also said the following:

“For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir – rice, beans and pork – that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events.  My Latina identity also includes, because of my particularly adventurous taste buds, morcilla, — pig intestines, patitas de cerdo con garbanzo — pigs’ feet with beans, and la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito, pigs’ tongue and ears.

Pretty benign, yes?

Er… no.

From Talking Points Memo:

According to Hill reporter Alexander Bolton, “This has prompted some Republicans to muse privately about whether Sotomayor is suggesting that distinctive Puerto Rican cuisine such as patitas de cerdo con garbanzo — pigs’ tongue and ears — would somehow, in some small way influence her verdicts from the bench.”

Curt Levey, the executive director of the Committee for Justice, a conservative-leaning advocacy group, said he wasn’t certain whether Sotomayor had claimed her palate would color her view of legal facts but he said that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee clearly touts her subjective approach to the law.

Seriously?  SERIOUSLY?  Ya think when conservative justices John Roberts or Samuel Alito were enduring the confirmation process, anyone made a point to talk about whether or not they eat too many hot dogs or too many hamburgers to be an impartial jurist?

Render unto me a fucking break, people.


Advertisements

May 29, 2009 - Posted by | Angry Black Lady Chronicles, Culture Critic, Politiks | , , , ,

45 Comments »

  1. That is pretty hilarious. Conservatives give conservatism a bad name.

    Comment by Skaði | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  2. A fucking break will be rendered from the bench as soon as I eat this ethnic meal, which is important for me to eat before I render.

    Look the woman wants to talk about pig intestines, let her talk. Speculation is silly.

    Comment by baby fish mouth | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  3. (That was vague – I am agreeing with you stm)

    Comment by baby fish mouth | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  4. Now I want Taco Bell.

    Comment by Chronically Constipated | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  5. Wow! Conservatives really have a knack for taking things out of context and twisting it. She has proven that she shows no favoritism for the Latino community when it comes to the law. She calls it as she sees it. This snippet of her speaking about her roots has nothing to do with how she rules on the bench.

    Comment by TT2 | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  6. Since when does what you have anything to do with your rulings as a judge. I think the right-wing idiots who are trying to discredit her are really digging thier own grave.

    Way to alienate the hispanic vote, white America! Traditionally, the hispanic vote has leaned more to the conservative side (until this last election). Now you’re making fun of what she EATS!? You will never get anywhere with the hispanic community if you start making fun of arroz con pollo and mafungo

    Comment by blah | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  7. on a somewhat related note, i think if it were part of my culture i might eat pig intestines but otherwise i will probably be sidestepping that particular item.

    unless i’m already eating them and don’t know about it. nobody tell me about hot dogs, please, please.

    Comment by baby fish mouth | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  8. On another unrelated note – how awesome would it be if the next nominee was Judge Judy?

    Comment by HolyChow | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  9. 1) Limbaugh is a self-aggrandizing asshat who is paid to stir up shit so conservatives can enjoy the stench.

    2) He is the one taking the crazy pills, probably without a prescription and while on a sex junket.

    3) What annoys me more is the normally sane people swallowing the allegations of racism. Racism isn’t saying “I think I am better qualified to judge certain things because I have more experience than certain people regarding those issues.” To allow that to to be twisted by people with an agenda to mean more than it does is silly, and buying in to false logic.

    Many of the people willing to buy this as racism are people who jump up and down shouting about how males creating or ruling on laws regarding reproduction or abortion is ridiculous because they have no idea what it’s like to be female, and I guess my problem is the logic doesn’t seem to be flowing in both directions. Or maybe they think sexism is OK, but racism isn’t? Either way, it makes no sense to me.

    People who are experienced in a particular area have more knowledge to draw upon, which DOES actually make them more qualified to thoroughly consider something before judging it. If more in depth experiences in a certain area didn’t == “better qualified” I’d go to the dentist for my gynecological exams, because well, surely they’ve both studied anatomy. The gynecologist just has more experience with the female bits, but a dentist could empathize his way through things, surely.

    Sorry, this is getting ranty and probably makes no sense, but the whole thing pisses me off.

    Comment by oneofthevoicesinmyhead | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  10. Well said, voices. Well said.

    One point, though: I don’t think that there are many in the conservative camp arguing that men shouldn’t make reproduction decisions for women… that’s more often (in my experience, at least) a pro-abortion rights argument (i.e. liberals)

    So maybe you are talking about liberals uncomfortable w/her statement and I just misread/misunderstood.

    Comment by SeaKat | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  11. Well, it might be confusing because I somehow commented on the wrong article, but thankfully I’m not too crazy sounding because it was this article and therefore still mostly relevant. 😀

    But I meant some women have a problem with men making decisions on abortion and birth control options in general. Not all women, obviously, but some. likewise the Sotomayor statement. Not all libruls are up in arms, obviously, it’s just when there’s overlap it bothers me…a lot.

    It also bothers me when I see people being led to a particular belief via poor, yet dazzling logic.

    Comment by oneofthevoicesinmyhead | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  12. “It also bothers me…poor, yet dazzling logic.”

    I’ve thought about this lately, and I’m starting to realize that are many more non-thinking sheep who vote than I had imagined.

    Comment by WhoMee | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  13. nailed it, voices.

    i was arguing myself into a corner on the other thread because i was worried about how arrogant it would sound for me to say “yeah, i think i would come to a more correct conclusion when judging cases dealing with racial and sex discrimination because of the totality of my life experiences.” but you know what? it’s what i think.

    i mean, an all white supreme court decided that black people are 3/5 of a person and therefore not protected as, and could never be protected as citizens of the united states. (dred scott v. sandford.) an all white supreme court decided that separate but equal is just fine and dandy. (plessy v. ferguson.) do i think if those cases had been decided by black justices, the result would have been “different”? yes, i do. do i think a judgment rendered by black justices would have been “better”? yes i do. do i think non-black justices are incapable of coming to the “different” and “better” conclusion? no i don’t.

    maybe that makes me arrogant. i think i’m ok with it, though.

    and at the end of the day, she is following the rule of law. it bothers me that the conservatives are trying to paint her as someone who is going to do whatever the hell she damn well pleases, as long as it helps her puerto rican brothers and sisters and subjugates the interests of white folks. that characterization is ludicrous.

    Comment by stopthemadness | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  14. STM, I don’t making think those statements shows that someone is arrogant. There is a ring of truth in what you say and most people either know it or suspect it.

    Comment by WhoMee | May 29, 2009 | Reply

  15. I still stand by my assertion that her experiences as a person of a certain race/gender DO NOT make her decisions on certain issues “better”. Haven’t we as a country risen above all these stereotypes? At least to the degree that ALL our judges are able to be impartial and fair? If you want to believe that white male judges are the same today as they were over 100 years ago…really, I don’t know what to say. Do you really truly believe that? Seriously?

    Comment by Skaði | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  16. STM and Skathi, you both have good points. I think this is where bfm’s empathy is called for. (pssst, bfm, you now have an ownership claim to empathy!! You can make a fortune off of early childhood education programs, now!)

    stm, Plessy v. Ferguson was decided in 1896 and Dred Scott in 1857… how many white, male judges today would concur with those decisions? (David Duke isn’t on the bench is he??) The Dred Scott decision was passed down before the start of the civil war. Plessy v. Ferguson was decided by men who were likely old enough to have fought in it. Things have changed, starting with the baby boomer generation (your parents, for example) and moving on through our generation.

    Skathi, your situation right now sucks, majorly. I can only imagine how angry you must be to own a house that has suddenly become a nightmare because a bunch of scary drug addicts (who seem to hate you just because you’re white) have moved in next door. Your husband has been attacked, and on top of worrying about his and your own safety, you have a little kid that you need to keep safe from these crackheaads. And then to read, on your hag-haven, that people are *not* up in arms that a propsed justice for the Supreme frigging Court, thinks she is better than a white judge because she is a minority. And you, very correctly, are standing up saying: “Hey! It’s not JUST people of color who are being treated unfairly based on the color of their skin!! It’s happening to me right now!!” And you’re totally right.

    I don’t have the answer. I’m just happy that we have a place where people with such different experiences and heritages can come together and calmly, respectfully discuss our opinions. That is rare. And awesome.

    Comment by SeaKat | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  17. i understand those decisions were in the 18th century, but separate but equal just got overturned 50 years ago, jim crow was alive and well 40 years ago. also, if you look at the rhetoric flying now about how sotomayor is a hispanic chick lady, or a schoolmarm, or eats shit that is too weird to make her impartial, or that she’s a Latino KKK member without the hoods and nooses, or that she’s an affirmative action candidate (democrats are still screaming that clarence thomas was an affirmative action nominee which i also take offense to), no, i do not think we as a country have risen above those stereotypes.

    i think we’re making progress, but if we were there, i wouldn’t be so angry and personally offended by the bullshit being spewed about sotomayor.

    sotomayor graduated in 1974 from yale. she interviewed with a big firm (shaw pittman) and one of the partners said something to the effect of “do you think it’s fair to minorites for us to hire them and then when they prove unqualified, fire them.” someone said that to her in a job interview. and she was able to get yale to demand a formal apology.

    i got into yale for law school. and some of the people i worked with as a paralegal at the time expressed such shock and disbelief that little old black me was possibly qualified to have gained admission there. when i made law review at UVA, i actually had a classmate of mine say “oh that’s great that you got in under the diversity program.” my jaw dropped. sure, maybe white folks don’t want to see black folks in chains, but justice is blind? we’re not there yet if people like the dude i went to law school with ever become judges. i mean, do you really think that all white folks look at all minorities and see them as equals? i mean, all mexicans are good for is cooking and landscaping and taking our jerbs, right?

    i spent 3 years in charlottesville, va. when it came time for me to buy interview suits, i was FOLLOWED AROUND THE DEPARTMENT STORES.

    so no. no i do not think we have risen above stereotypes. it’s a nice thought, but my personal experiences (and i’m upper middle class, for christ’s sake raised by a white woman) tell me differently. my mom constantly had to struggle and bitch at school authorities to make sure i got into gifted class in elementary and middle school because they’d take a look at me and assume i needed to be in remedial algebra rather than in calculus. and then when i was in all the gifted classes, all the black kids would complain that i was being too white. stereotypes cut in both directions. and i don’t think we’ve risen above.

    cheers,

    stm

    Comment by stopthemadness | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  18. at any rate, skathi, i’m very sorry for what you’re going through.

    Comment by stopthemadness | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  19. Whoa, whoa — I myself am NOT a crackhead, so I would never claim that we have risen above stereotypes. I said that we’ve made progress since 1897 or so!! 🙂

    I believe that we have made significant progress in our generation, alone. Maybe I’m just fooling myself — but I remember when Jesse Jackson ran for president and no one *really* thought he had a chance. Partially because, well, he’s a rather divisive character and certainly abrasive at times, but also because he is black and most people didn’t believe that whites would vote for him.

    Fastforward–what? 2 decades or so? I’m not saying that President Obama’s victory means that it’s all good, and that centuries of mistreatment get expunged. Not at all. But I believe that Skaathi had a point that today’s white judge (and to expand that, today’s white person) isn’t the same as 100 years ago. Thank GOD. We’re getting closer.

    I feel for both of you and I think you both have good points. As I posted on the earlier thread, STM, I don’t for a second pretend that I, as a white woman — esp. one living in the most liberal city (outside of Berkeley, perhaps) in the US can fully comprehend what it would be like to be a minority in the United States. I can try to empathize, but it’s not the same thing. Living through an experience is NOT the same as imagining living through it, no matter how hard we try to bridge the gap.

    In all honesty, I think Judge Sotomayor’s record should speak for itself. If she doesn’t have a history of bias from the bench (and I think everyone agrees that she doesn’t) then WTF is the problem?? She can stand up in a speech and say that blondes should be shot at dawn…as long as she use haircolor as a factor in cases, it’s not a problem. (Oh! Unless she’s presiding over one of the “My hairdresser ruined my hair and won’t refund my money!!” cases on the People’s Court…then I guess it would be OK.)

    Anyhow — once again, I appreciate the fact that we can all share our thoughts and opinions without things turning into a stupid “You’re a bitch!” “No YOU are!” -style free-for-all. It’s hard to find people willing to be open about these kinds of topics. They’re too scary. But talking about it is what’s going to keep progress moving forward.

    (PS- What do I get for writing the longest comment ever?)
    (PPS- I like to eat anchovies with whipped cream on top.)
    (PPPS – No, I don’t. Just testing to see if anyone kept reading this far…)

    Comment by SeaKat | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  20. *** as long as she DOESN’T use haircolor as a factor…

    See? Even I wasn’t reading any longer…

    Comment by SeaKat | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  21. seakat, i think we’re tied for longest comment!

    and yes, we have made progress. and i do love respectful discussions. and i do love squee!-ers. also bacon.

    what can i say, i’m an angry black lady today! 😀

    i do miss matt, though.

    Comment by stopthemadness | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  22. LOL. I was *totally* thinking of Matt when I wrote that about the free-for-all.

    Comment by SeaKat | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  23. whenever i fake miss matt, i get thinking and then i actually really miss reba rae.

    who was reba rae again?

    Comment by baby fish mouth | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  24. reba rae!

    oH mygudnezz, I toetally foregawt abuot herrr!!11!!!1 She wuxz sewe gr8!! BeCauwse the deere baybeee Jeebuzz wuz waching owt fur her and Duwayne becawsse she wuz a guud Chrischun womuhn who new her puhlace!!!!11!!

    Comment by SeaKat | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  25. aw, reba rae!

    wasn’t his real name “poo” or something?

    Comment by stopthemadness | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  26. Reba rae & matt! It’s a sad day when I miss those names. By the way something, I can’t access the final post of The Site That Shall Not Be Named anymore…

    Comment by Stay, see? | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  27. I have to confess, I am starting to become confused by the the subtle contradictions and claims of contradictions being made back and forth. If what I’m about to say sounds like I’ve missed something in this discussion, then I probably have missed something.

    It seems to me that a mountain is being out of a molehill. I don’t understand why it is at all controversial to say that a justice would come to a better judgment in a case involving a person who has had life experiences similar to that justice. It wouldn’t have been nearly as controversial if Sotomayor had only referred to her childhood in a particular neighborhood, or to her economic status, instead of to her ethnic background.

    I think this is the crux of the controversy. We’re collectively still so sensitive about being thought of as racist that any mention of race or ethnic background whatsoever inflames a still-healing wound. There is absolutely nothing racist or sexist or anything-ist about her statement, in my opinion. She is not making a statement about her value as a person being greater than that of a white man (which would border on racism and/or sexism). She is simply saying that she would come to a better judgment in certain situations because she has greater clarity about those situations than someone who hasn’t been in those situations. Where is the racism or sexism or anything-ism in that?

    Everyone has had a finite set of life experiences, and those life experiences always color and inform one’s perceptions and judgments. We cannot get away from that fact and I don’t think that it is controversial to say so in general terms. In my layperson’s understanding of law, I think our system even embraces that fact in stating that every person has a right to be tried by a jury of his or her peers. This only becomes controversial when we refer to being a WASP, a Jew, an African-American, an Asian, a Latino, a man, a woman or whatever. It is thoroughly non-controversial otherwise.

    As OOTVIMH said, “People who are experienced in a particular area have more knowledge to draw upon, which DOES actually make them more qualified to thoroughly consider something before judging it.” I think the fact that Sotomayor said “Latina woman” (gasp!) makes the entire discussion unnecessarily become about race or ethnicity and about gender instead of about simply whether or not life experience in general matters or should matter in being an impartial judge. That, to me, is the critical question to be asking, not whether the specific experience of being Latina or a woman matters. To continue to shine the light on either of those two aspects of the statement is to prolong the context of racism and sexism that each side is accusing the other of exhibiting.

    Comment by WhoMee | May 31, 2009 | Reply

  28. ::applause::

    Comment by baby fish mouth | May 31, 2009 | Reply

  29. I don’t mind if it is her opinion that she’s “better” because of x,y, and z. The problem is that she said these things in a speech in 2001. Meaning, she has been after this seat on the Supreme Court for a long time. I don’t know what her agenda is, and I can only hope that it is benign. Perhaps there was nothing to what she said, but she said it, so I feel that it was not only calculated, but also assumed things that she had no right to assume on a public stage.

    I won’t be reading or commenting any longer on this subject. I just want to thank SeaKat for understanding where I’m coming from, and STM for being civil with me through this whole debate. I respect your position, and sympathize with you for having had to deal with the bias in Charlottesville (not my favorite town to visit by a long shot). I also appreciate that we can have these discussions without degrading into insults.

    Comment by Skaði | May 31, 2009 | Reply

  30. ::slow clap::

    nicely said, WhoMee.

    i’m not sure what people who are offended by her statement or think she shouldn’t have said what she said could possibly think her agenda is.

    a seat on the supreme court isn’t exactly something a lawyer or judge can “go after” and calculatingly plan for. there are only 9 seats. she made the statement at a speech to law students (if i’m not mistaken) in 2001 right at the beginning of the bush era. seems to me it would take a lot of prescience to think “oh i’m going to get nominated by the next democrat in office.” i obviously don’t know her, but it just seems odd to think that she has been after the seat based on a speech she gave at a law school.

    and even if she dreamed or thought she might be picked 8 years ago, what could her malignant agenda possibly be? that just makes no sense to me.

    Comment by stopthemadness | May 31, 2009 | Reply

  31. stopthemadness: It was probably all in preparation for creating this publicity for herself now. She is truly an evil genius. In fact ,I bet she SENT that sound bite to the conservative press and is now laughing gleefully as she watches this controversy unfold, knowing her name will be in history books whether or not she is confirmed.

    Or maybe that’s so ridiculous it makes the point for us.

    Comment by oneofthevoicesinmyhead | May 31, 2009 | Reply

  32. Oy. My brain hurts after all of this. I don’t think Sotomayor has an agenda. I don’t think she’s racist. I do think she probably wishes she had phrased things a little differently!! Or maybe not.

    Either way, I’m just happy that whichever Chief Justice she’s nominated to replace (and I knew at one point, but it’s gotten lost in all the insanity) managed to stay on the bench ’til after Bush was gone!! 🙂

    Comment by SeaKat | May 31, 2009 | Reply

  33. With my background this is how I see it.
    she is being picked because of her background not on merit.
    she is not the best person for the job.
    she more than likely is not racists.
    she is sexist. Latin is not a race we have black, white, brown, oriental , Latins.on her fire fighting ruling she should of stepped down because of conflict of interested since she benefited from affirmative action

    Comment by chelsea | June 1, 2009 | Reply

  34. she graduated princeton summa cum laude.
    she was editor of the yale law journal.
    she’s been a district court judge (appointed by George HW Bush.)
    she’s a second circuit judge (appointed by Clinton and confirmed by a handful of staunch Republicans).

    it absolutely defies reason to say she was picked because of her background and not on merit. was it some blend of both? perhaps. but don’t forget, she brings more experience to the table than any other supreme court justice nominee in 100 years.

    and as to her ruling in the firefighter case, she was on a panel of appellate judges, all of whom (except one) agreed that the lower court in that case had made the right decision. one judge dissented. the case is now before the supreme court. if the supreme court disagrees with the majority (of which sotomayor was a part) then they’ll kick the case back to the trial court for a decision in keeping with however the supreme court rules. that’s the way the system is supposed to work. and, if it truly was a conflict of interest, you can be sure that the attorneys before the court would have asked that she recuse herself, or at least would have stated that her failure to recuse herself is grounds for appeal.

    and as to your comment that she benefited from affirmative action, just wow. i find that mind-numbingly offensive. moreover, how can you possibly know that? i can’t help but wonder if you assume that all minorities who have gained success have benefited from affirmative action. i mean, wow. really?

    more likely than not racist? how do you come to this conclusion?

    sexist? how do you come to the conclusion that she’s sexist? based upon what?

    you just made a bunch of blanket statements seemingly based upon nothing at all. you are, of course entitled to your opinions, but TMIMO, it is easy to discount an opinion that seems to ignore facts or, that is unsupported by any evidence.

    also you just said that Latin is not a race (a statement with which I agree) but then lumped “Latins” in with various races! it’s contradictory.

    and finally, “orientals” are rugs, “asians” are people.

    sorry for the long reply, but you just blew my mind.

    cheers,
    stm

    Comment by stopthemadness | June 2, 2009 | Reply

  35. …did that seriously just happen?

    To go from the respectful, intelligent conversation we had last week (re: do certain life experiences make you a “better” judge) to comments like that are completely disppointing to me.

    And I think what is very scary is that, for every person who says it, there are probably 10 more thinking it. I know that I’m a little “Pollyanna”, but I’ll never understand how any kind of “-ism” still exists today.

    Comment by shu_shu | June 2, 2009 | Reply

  36. THAT BEING SAID I STAND BY MY COMMENTS
    CLEAR ONE THING ,I don’t think she is racist I think she is sexist. Sorry to have an opinion next time I’LL check with you stp to see what opinion I should take. I’m truly sorry that my vocabulary is not perfect, up to par.
    Yes most minorities(that would benefit me but does not make it right)do get help from affirmative action.and even if they don’t it makes all our accomplishments supect even if no one dares say so for fear of being labeled.as for shu-shu respectful , intelligent conversation does not mean debate. ok you all agree good for you. I DON’T.

    Comment by chelsea | June 2, 2009 | Reply

  37. YES SHE SHOULD OF STEPPED DOWN from the case. one question do you think it was fair that those that passed the test should lose their chance for promotion.?

    Comment by chelsea | June 2, 2009 | Reply

  38. chelsea-

    i was arguing with you about whether or not she should step down. my problem is with the blanket statement that most minorities benefit from affirmative action. i don’t understand how you can possibly believe that.

    you have your right to your opinions. i never stated otherwise. i have the right to be appalled by your opinions.

    finally, the question in the firefighter case was not whether it was fair that those who passed lost their chance. connecticut didn’t promote “unqualified minorities” over “qualified non-minorities.” in order to avoid the semblance of impropriety, they threw the entire test out. for everyone. whites and blacks. they feared being sued by minorities if they didn’t. well they did and they got sued by the white firefighters. so that’s fine. that’s what happens. people sue when they think they’ve been wronged.

    the issue before the court was whether or not connecticut throwing out the test scores passed muster under title vii (i think it’s title vii… i’m too lazy to look it up.)

    and my point is that sotomayor was not the judge who decided that it was proper for connecticut to throw out the test scores. the district court judge decided that. plaintiffs appealed. sonia and her co-appellate judges examined the case and found essentially that the trial court didn’t screw up the decision so badly that it warranted reversal. there are rules and statutes that deal with an appellate judge’s power to reverse a trial court ruling and what the standard for reversal is.

    plaintiffs appealed again. and now the u.s. supreme court is going to decide. that’s how it’s supposed to work. various levels of review to ensure as best as possible that the right result is reached.

    whether or not what connecticut did was “fair” is not the issue here. the issue is whether or not sonia should have stepped down because you say–based on nothing but your own feelings–that she benefited from affirmative action.

    also, why should she have stepped down? you don’t know that she benefited from affirmative action. and if she doesn’t think that she did, then why would it even cross her mind? and if she thinks she did, it doesn’t logically follow that she is incapable of judging impartially. i mean, if she wears glasses, does that mean she cannot adjudicate any cases having to do with spectacles? you have a right to your opinion, but i’m going to argue with you if i disagree. and i’ll try to do so without relying too heavily on snark.

    cheers,
    stm

    Comment by stopthemadness | June 2, 2009 | Reply

  39. How did I miss this?!?!?!?!

    This, right here, is one of the reasons why I love this site. Debate people, actual debate! And mostly civil too!

    And just for every record everywhere (I’m looking at YOU Miss California) people disagreeing with your opinion is not them disagreeing with your right to have said opinion.

    It just means that they think they have a better argument for why you’re wrong. If the best counter you can come up with to their argument is “you’re picking on me for having an opinion” then you need to rethink your original opinion and why you have it.

    Debate is based on opinions supported by facts.

    The secret to persuasion is having better, stronger, or otherwise harder to argue with facts.

    It seems so apropos to have a debate about a judge and her decisions somehow…

    Comment by TheHobo | June 2, 2009 | Reply

  40. Couple things:

    1). I’m glad you have your opinions, Chelsea. I would expect you to stand by them and I’m not asking you to apologize for them.
    2). However, have you read any of the previous posts on this subject? If not, I would urge you to. You would see that many of us actually *do* disagree on the issue.
    3). The conversation was intelligent & respectful because, while each person was conveying his/her opinion, we all managed to refrain from hurling around racial epithets.
    4). If you have evidence that Sotomayor benefited from “affirmative action” I’d be interested in seeing it.
    5). If you seriously think you are being picked on, then I REALLY urge you to go back and read the previous posts. Because if any one person has really been forced to defend their position, it has been STM. And she has done so quite eloquently, with a very cogent, factually supported argument.

    Comment by shu_shu | June 2, 2009 | Reply

  41. wow, thanks shu_shu. i appreciate that.

    Comment by stopthemadness | June 2, 2009 | Reply

  42. Okay: disclaimers:
    1) I’m not American.
    2) I’m not well-versed in Sotomayer’s history (so I should probably just keep my mouth shut, but I’m not gonna)
    3) I’m not going to be able to state this clearly cause I’m kind of incensed.

    I would argue that the very fact that so many people are hysterical about her purported “racism” and “sexism” is, in and of itself, proof that racism is still a huge factor in the collective consciousness. No one freaked the hell out when another old, white man got appointed to the bench (or if they did, it was about the actual ISSUES, people, ISSUES.) I’m sick that the debate isn’t about her judicial record, which by all accounts, seems quite good, or her experience, which sounds quite adequate. She’s female. She’s not white. She acknowledges that fact as part of her personhood, which is what makes us all who we are.

    No one freaks out when George Bush, or Hilary Clinton, or whomever reminisces about their childhood growing up on farms, or lower-middle class, or upper-middle class, or eating Cheez Whiz, or whatever. No one tries to read into this that their upbringing might have influenced their decisions. That, in and of itself, is exemplary of the white hegemony that (consciously or not) influences so many people’s thinking. The normative acceptance of the white American experience makes Sotomayer the “other”, which is what makes so many people suspicious. So what if her life experiences influence her decisions? I would hope (and bet) it does for all of us. That’s what makes us thinking people and not automatons. It’s also what enables individual decisions, progress, and growth within and outside the legal system.

    All this hullabaloo about Sotomayer, TMIMO, demonstrates a dirty double standard that too few are willing to acknowledge.

    So ends my (admittedly underinformed) rant.

    Comment by vodkafanta | June 2, 2009 | Reply

  43. White hegemony – it’s not just for breakfast anymore.

    Comment by baby fish mouth | June 3, 2009 | Reply

  44. Hahaha! But White Hedgie-Os are… if you’re a hedgehog, at least.

    Comment by SeaKat | June 3, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: