The GOP and Sotomayor...

[Patrick_R]

Actually I'm not well-read enough on the case to make that claim.

But clearly, the presence the firefighters have garnered on the talk-radio and the conserva-bubble more generally speak to the sympathy conservatives hold for the latest iteration in the Honest White Man Done Wrong by Liberals anthology.

And its this sympathy - which I am not sure is completely unfounded - that the GOP is using in a cynical ploy to discredit Sotomayor. That's out one side of their mouth. Out the other side is all the pablum about Sotomayor's quote about being a "wise latina woman", and how that means she'll use "sympathy" when dealing with illegal immigrants or other undesirables.

Given that her track record demonstrates clearly that she has NOT done so in the past, the bankrupt nature of these claims becomes all the clearer.

There are clear legal principles at play in the Ricci case: that's what should be discussed, not the sympathetic nature of the firefighters.

As to talk radio, you're right of course, sympathetic anecdotes are easier to sell than cold hard facts.

 

[Tricky]

Give me a break. Numerous suits? He filed one lawsuit before this. And what's the BS about how he can't seem to keep a job? Just making things up these days to smear a political opponent?

Oops. You're right. Only filed two suits. Threatened others. He did a lot of complaining about discrimination though.

Sotomayor is going to get approved. Dragging a firefighter with a disability through the mud is not necessary. Or enlightened.

It is the GOP's decision to crassly use Frank Ricci as a political tool. No, it is not at all necessary. But like Joe the Plumber, it seems he will happly exchange his reputation for his few minutes of fame and perhaps a few speaking gigs.

Ultimately, there are two ways to frame Frank Ricci's penchant for filing employment discrimination complaints: Perhaps he was repeatedly victimized by a cruel cadre of employers, first for his dyslexia, then again for his role as a whistle-blower, and then a third time for just being white. If that is so, we should all be deeply grateful for the robust civil rights laws that protect Americans from unfair discrimination in the workplace. I look forward to hearing Republican Sen. John Cornyn's version of that speech next week.
The other way to look at Frank Ricci is as a serial plaintiff—one who reacts to professional slights and setbacks by filing suit, threatening to file suit, and more or less complaining his way up the chain of command.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oops. You're right. Only filed two suits. Threatened others. He did a lot of complaining about discrimination though.

No comments about the validity of his complaints, I see.

It is the GOP's decision to crassly use Frank Ricci as a political tool. No, it is not at all necessary. But like Joe the Plumber, it seems he will happly exchange his reputation for his few minutes of fame and perhaps a few speaking gigs.

Yeah: he should sit down and shut up. Let his betters speak. And if he doesn't, if he chooses to voice his opinions, then it's his own fault if we destroy him personally.

So far, he only actual reason that you've given to justify attacking him personally is precisely that he is voicing his opinions. Is that really the way you want politics to operate, Tricky? Is that really the standard you want established?

 

[Tricky]

No comments about the validity of his complaints, I see.

We don't really know the validity of his first complaint.

That case was settled in 1997 with a confidential settlement in which Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney's fees.

Yeah: he should sit down and shut up. Let his betters speak. And if he doesn't, if he chooses to voice his opinions, then it's his own fault if we destroy him personally.

Did I say that? I only said it would be a mistake (on the GOP's part) to use him. I am perfectly happy to let the GOP make themselves look foolish.

So far, he only actual reason that you've given to justify attacking him personally is precisely that he is voicing his opinions. Is that really the way you want politics to operate, Tricky? Is that really the standard you want established?

He is not just "voicing his opinions". He is being called to witness for the suitability of Sotomayor as a judge. It is only fair that the Senate be allowed to question his suitability as a witness. Would you prefer that it operated differently and that a person could make character attacks without allowing questions on his own character? Is that really the legal standard you want established?

 

[Ziggurat]

We don't really know the validity of his first complaint.

But you're attacking him as if you did.

He is not just "voicing his opinions".

Yes he is. He has been given a platform by others to voice his opinions more widely than most of us get to, but that's still all he's doing.

He is being called to witness for the suitability of Sotomayor as a judge.

Is he? Or is he being called as a witness regarding the case of which he was a part? That may have relevance to Sotomayor's suitability, but is he even being asked to make any judgments about her suitability? Even if he were, that would still just be his opinion. And since your attack has no connection to the actual contents of whatever opinions he might offer, I am still left to conclude that it is the fact of him offering opinions, and not the opinions themselves, which you find objectionable.

It is only fair that the Senate be allowed to question his suitability as a witness.

Which has what, precisely, to do with the negative characterization of Ricci that you presented? Nothing, Tricky. Nothing at all.

Would you prefer that it operated differently and that a person could make character attacks without allowing questions on his own character? Is that really the legal standard you want established?

Strawman (and we're not talking about legal standards anyways). Has he made any character attacks against Sotomayor? Not that I'm aware of, and not that you've actually suggested. But you (and others) have made character attacks against Ricci, in your case on the basis of essentially no real evidence. If the Republicans are smart, they won't ask him to criticize Sotomayor, but only to talk about his case, and why he brought suit. That wouldn't constitute any sort of character attack against Sotomayor on his part. And yes, I would prefer that he would be able to do that without getting attacked personally before he even makes a statement. Do you honestly not agree?

 

[Brainster]

He is not just "voicing his opinions". He is being called to witness for the suitability of Sotomayor as a judge. It is only fair that the Senate be allowed to question his suitability as a witness. Would you prefer that it operated differently and that a person could make character attacks without allowing questions on his own character? Is that really the legal standard you want established?

This is a complete strawman. Ricci is not being called to make character attacks against Sotomayor; I doubt he has ever met her. He's not Anita Hill for pete's sake (and I'd be hugely surprised if you defend the questions asked about her character).

This kind of "anybody who's got a beef with Sotomayor must be a bad guy" nonsense is characterizing nobody but you The sensible way for the Democrats to counter Ricci is to simply point out that even the Supreme Court was conflicted on the case and therefore that Sotomayor's concurrence with the ruling denying Ricci's appeal was not unreasonable, even if the Supreme Court decided narrowly that it was wrong.

And, in keeping with the OP, I would remind you that Italians are watching and muttering every time somebody disses Ricci.

 

[Praktik]

And, in keeping with the OP, I would remind you that Italians are watching and muttering every time somebody disses Ricci.

And also grabbing fistfuls of their greasy hair.

 

[Ziggurat]

The sensible way for the Democrats to counter Ricci is to simply point out that even the Supreme Court was conflicted on the case and therefore that Sotomayor's concurrence with the ruling denying Ricci's appeal was not unreasonable, even if the Supreme Court decided narrowly that it was wrong.

While a large part of the SC sided with the defendant, even the dissent rejected the reasoning given by the lower court. So in reality, the court was unanimous in its rejection of Sotomayor's ruling.

 

[Brainster]

While a large part of the SC sided with the defendant, even the dissent rejected the reasoning given by the lower court. So in reality, the court was unanimous in its rejection of Sotomayor's ruling.

True, but that's like pointing out that the SC actually ruled 7-2 in Bush V Gore; too hard to explain in sound bites.

 

[Cicero]

What is most telling about their attacks on Sotomayor - the chum in the GOP waters was her comment about her experience as a female minority and how that might "inform" her decisions. The GOP say that "sympathy" and "empathy" shouldn't factor in to any judicial decisions. Of course if they looked at her track record, they'd see her ruling against very sympathetic individuals with amazing consistency. The proof is in the pudding: whatever the quote says, her actions should tell us that the quote shouldn't worry us.

Beyond that, they're bringing in the firefighters from the Ricci case - why? Not for their legal knowledge, or (in)ability to comment impartially on her merits as a judge, but because of the sympathy and empathy the firefighters will generate in hopes of tarring Sotomayor as being insensitive to their plight.

But isn't that what they most fear Sotomayor doing in the first place??

Further, note the silence of the GOP on Alito's admission that his experience as an "italian american" informs his judgment.

"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."S.S.

Had said Sotomayor said "informed," not "better," she could have saved herself a lot of grief in these hearings even though she actually meant what she said at the time. The women will be confirmed. Then we can sit back and wait for the inevitable VP Biden gaffe.

 

[Praktik]

"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."S.S.

Too bad Sotomayor didn't say "inform."

Too bad her record demonstrates her acting completely opposite to the worst fears of people who trot out this quote.

Look at the record: she sided with the law and against sympathetic clients FAR MORE OFTEN. Lou Dobbs even said so last week in a report.

 

[Cicero]

Too bad her record demonstrates her acting completely opposite to the worst fears of people who trot out this quote.

Look at the record: she sided with the law and against sympathetic clients FAR MORE OFTEN. Lou Dobbs even said so last week in a report.

So why equivocate about this comment in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

 

[Praktik]

So why equivocate about this comment in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Why make a huge deal out of it if the record obviously shows it hasn't biased her decisions?

 

[Cicero]

Why make a huge deal out of it if the record obviously shows it hasn't biased her decisions?

Huge deal? The women didn't go down in flames. She was an easy confirmation. One wonders why she just didn't stick to her comments instead of just saying the things she figured the Republican Senators wanted to hear. Does she really believe her confirmation would be jeopardized had she owned up to the true meaning of her comment?

 

[Praktik]

. Does she really believe her confirmation would be jeopardized had she owned up to the true meaning of her comment?

Well this presupposes that the standard Townhall.com interpretation of that comment is the correct one, and since I reject that premise, I'm not sure there's a whole big scary "true meaning" lurking behind her "equivocations".

 

[Robster FCD]

I'm quite enjoying watching the GOP consign itself to minority status.

For the GOP senators, this has more to do with being obstructionist than anything, as opposed to racism (excepting Sessions, of course). At least that is my opinion. They feel the need to stand in the way of Obama and offer an image of standing up to Sotomayor in order to hold onto their base. A base which donates money to campaigns and PACs.

The empathy being a bad thing is an interesting tack for the GOP to take, especially after celebrating Alito's immigrant family.

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 in to account.

Alito was a practitioner of empathy. So why is it bad for Sotomayor to do the same? Because the GOP believes in standards. Double ones.

 

[Whiplash]

I wondered why there was no thread about the hearings. I figured it was because everyone found them as boring as I did. She's going to be confirmed. No one is giving her a hard time. Republicans are rolling over for her.

But sure enough, when the thread does start.. what do you know. The republicans are (of course) bending over backwards to destroy her! And it will backfire! What are they thinking? Every hispanic in the world is watching! They see all! They will remember!

Puh-lease... The demagoging here is just so outrageous. And of course, yet another lesson for Republicans. No matter how fair you try to be, you'll never be considered such by the left. You'll never an ounce of respect in return. It's war. Vicious, scorched earth warfare. There is no sense in trying to do anything to appease the other side, ever. It never helps or works at all.

Poor John McCain, who was called a Maverick (by main stream media and many on the left) is the best example of this. He got the most friendly with the left of any previous Republicans. And look how well that worked for him. As soon as election season started, he was suddenly a kooky, old man who was too friendly with Bush.

Of course, I already know what responses to what I'm saying will be. That I'm the one seeing bias, and the left is the most tolerant (laugh) and open group of thinkers ever.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Wow, whippy.................just wow.

 

[Whiplash]

Furthermore, is there any reason to believe these every day hispanics you are seeing are all completely and fully aware of all of her positions and beliefs, and are standing by her based on that? Or could it be possible that they are standing around her in a form of solidarity because of her race? You know, the "first hispanic female justice". This has not been unknown to happen in the past. Here in Milwaukee, we have several black officials who have done bad things, repeatedly, but are continually supported and re-elected by their constituents.

I can already sense I'll be called a racist for even considering such a thing. But I mean they are reacting more in a manner of pride. Wanting to support their person as they see it as a personal victory for themselves and their race.

Ken, that's how I feel every day when I read these forums. If you really don't see it, then I don't know what to say. McCain is a poster child for stupd Republican attempts to appease the left. It never works.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You are such a maverick, whippy. I wish I had you insight.