The GOP and Sotomayor...

[boloboffin]

The only thing I can think is that these senators are hoping and praying that their behavior is happening so early in Obama: Year 1 that it won't be remembered in Year 4 or their own election year.

Of course Democratic sympathizers are busy editing the B-roll down to "Wise Latina" montages as we speak. Nothing can be forgotten in the Internet age.

 

[Cicero]

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

Your avatar is still not up to date. POTUS Obama is doing warrantless wiretaps, renditions and GITMO is still open for business.

 

[Whiplash]

I'd like to try to explain more clearly what I mean about the whole racial solidarity thing.

Here in America, where "whites" are the majority, people who are of other groups, considered minorities, look and see that the ruling classes and officials are predominantly white.

Then along comes a candidate or person who is part of their own racial group or class.

Does anyone really think that there are not some people who would be willing to turn a blind eye towards problems, or still support said person regardless of anything that happens? It's not even just a racial thing. It happens by party affiliation as well. Many on both sides are willing to overlook certain things, and turn blind eyes towards things, when they support the candidate.. because he's on "our side".

That's all I'm suggesting. That some of the people mentioned in the OP may just be proud that she is in this position, and want to see her succeed very strongly... so strongly they may not be fully logical and fair about it. So much that they percieve anyone attacking her as having an evil, underlying reason for doing so.

And really, the entire idea that people should cower in fear at how any group of people feel is foreign to me. I think that people who have principals should stand by them, regardless of what opinion is. Yet many on the left (like Bill Clinton) were practically always sticking a wet finger in the air to gauge opinions and try to do what is popular. I believe in doing what's right, regardless of the backlash. And if eventually we get fully rejected by the majority, then so be it. I will gladly sit back and let the others make things so bad that we will be proven right, in the long run. (or I'll eventually see that I was wrong, and change my beliefs).

Ken, you aren't hurting me in the least. Do you have anything to say about what I'm specifically talking about? Or are you just going to "Wow, just wow" and try to ridicule me into obscurity? I hardly find you to be the most objective lefty here. Far more on the extreme end, with some others. After all, look at your avatar you still tout. Even if you do it just to "irrate" people like me, that's very imature and counter productive.

 

[Praktik]

McCain is a poster child for stupd Republican attempts to appease the left. It never works.

So what does work then?

I didn't see much "appeasement" from Republicans for several decades, where are they now?

 

[Cicero]

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.



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.

Except Alito never said he made "better conclusions "because of his Italian heritage.

 

[Praktik]

I'd like to try to explain more clearly what I mean about the whole racial solidarity thing.

Here in America, where "whites" are the majority, people who are of other groups, considered minorities, look and see that the ruling classes and officials are predominantly white.

Then along comes a candidate or person who is part of their own racial group or class.

This also applies to Dubya and Palin IMHO - a large part of their appeal was the folksy image they cultivated and many of their most fervent supporters were open in saying they liked these politicians because they were "like them".

 

[Robster FCD]

Except Alito never said he made "better conclusions "because of his Italian heritage.

Did he say that he made worse ones?

No. He said that his decisions were affected by his heritage when examining immigration cases.

Why is that OK for Alito, but for Sotomayor, it is not?

Would you really want someone who did not have any confidence in their judgment?

Really, it does not matter if she thinks her judgment is better than anybody else, considering that she will still only get one vote on any decision.

 

[Cicero]

Did he say that he made worse ones?

Alito didn't say "better" or worse, he said "informed."

No. He said that his decisions were affected by his heritage when examining immigration cases.

As far as one's heritage, it might result in a different conclusion.

Why is that OK for Alito, but for Sotomayor, it is not?

If Sonyia said what Alito said, she would have saved herself a lot of grief during the hearing.

Would you really want someone who did not have any confidence in their judgment?

Confidence, yes. Hubris, no.

Really, it does not matter if she thinks her judgment is better than anybody else, considering that she will still only get one vote on any decision.

If it doesn't matter, why are you denying her actual words and their meaning?

 

[Tricky]

I do not see why so much is being made of a single phrase taken out of a single speech made to a private organization. It is in no way part of any official decision she has made. No person questioning Sotomayor has shown any evidence that this statement has guided her in any decision. There has been no evidence that any sort of racism or ethnic prejudice is inherent in any of her decisions. It is a tempest in a teapot, and only a highly paranoid person would be the least bit disturbed by it.

I have no doubt that if you meticulously scoured the words of every speech that any judge has ever given over the course of their careers, you might find a statement or two that could be used to throw in their faces.

But let the GOP's ridiculous tactics alienate all the Hispanics they like. It's their funeral.

 

[Robster FCD]

I do not see why so much is being made of a single phrase taken out of a single speech made to a private organization. It is in no way part of any official decision she has made. No person questioning Sotomayor has shown any evidence that this statement has guided her in any decision. There has been no evidence that any sort of racism or ethnic prejudice is inherent in any of her decisions. It is a tempest in a teapot, and only a highly paranoid person would be the least bit disturbed by it.

I have no doubt that if you meticulously scoured the words of every speech that any judge has ever given over the course of their careers, you might find a statement or two that could be used to throw in their faces.

But let the GOP's ridiculous tactics alienate all the Hispanics they like. It's their funeral.

Exactly. There is no rational reason for this other than a need to appear strong to the conservative donor base. Except that to far too many republicans, empathy for one group is always prejudice against the others.

 

[Robster FCD]

Confidence, yes. Hubris, no.

From your point of view.

If it doesn't matter, why are you denying her actual words and their meaning?

I'm not. You are ascribing meaning to them that are not there.

 

[Cicero]

From your point of view.



I'm not. You are ascribing meaning to them that are not there.

Sure. They meaning was clear to her audience when she made the speech, but when the audience is the Senate Judiciary Committee, the meaning becomes ambiguous. She will be a natural on the SCOTS.

 

[Robster FCD]

Sure. They meaning was clear to her audience when she made the speech, but when the audience is the Senate Judiciary Committee, the meaning becomes ambiguous. She will be a natural on the SCOTS.

You are just stripping the phrase from its context and projecting your own expected attitudes on her.

"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."

Oh no. She is someone who has experienced and/or has seen others experience discrimination, and she comes from two groups that have historically faced discrimination, as opposed to a white male, who is not typically discriminated against. A more informed position through experience. She hopes that, specifically in cases regarding discrimination, that she may offer a better and fairer take because of this. I fail to see how this is any different from Alito's statements celebrated by the right regarding how his family's experiences informs his decisions.

She may have a different take from someone like Sessions, who usually is doing the discriminating.

And that, to some, is apparently terrible.

 

[coalesce]

And also grabbing fistfuls of their greasy hair.

Hey! My hair isn't that greasy!

My mustache, on the other hand...

Michael

 

[Cicero]

A more informed position through experience. She hopes that, specifically in cases regarding discrimination, that she may offer a better and fairer take because of this. I fail to see how this is any different from Alito's statements celebrated by the right regarding how his family's experiences informs his decisions.

Where did she say "fairer?" "You are projecting your own expected attitudes on her."

 

[joobz]

Except Alito never said he made "better conclusions "because of his Italian heritage.

And niether did Sotomayor. So what's your point?

 

[Cicero]

And niether did Sotomayor. So what's your point?

Right. She said "better conclusions" because of her Latin heritage.

 

[Robster FCD]

Right. She said "better conclusions" because of her Latin heritage.

You are leaving out the phrases "would hope" and "more often than not," which are important qualifiers, and suggest more humility than you are willing to ascribe to Sotomayor.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Lugar has become the first GOP senator to endorse Sotomayor. I think I heard that others have also done so.

ETA: I see Fox News says 3 have done so.

 

[SezMe]

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.

Puh-lease... The demagoging here is just so outrageous. And of course, yet another lesson for Democrats. No matter how fair you try to be, you'll never be considered such by the right. 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.

Sound familiar, Whip?