Posted on 06/15/2009 5:57:49 PM PDT by Kaslin
Back when I was on the receiving end of racial discrimination, it was to me not simply a personal misfortune, or even the misfortune of a race, it was a moral outrage. But not everyone who went through such an experience sees it that way.
When it comes to subjecting other people to the same treatment in a later era, some have no real problem with that. They see it as payback.
One of the many problems of the payback approach is that many of the people who most deserve retribution are no longer alive. You can take symbolic revenge on people who look like them, but this removes the whole moral element.
If it is all right to discriminate today against individuals who have done you no harm, then why was it wrong to discriminate against you in the past?
These are not just abstract questions. These are serious, real-world questions, especially when considering someone to be given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Some judicial nominees have had racial bias attributed to them, despite their years of unwavering support of civil rights for all — Judge Robert Bork and Judge Charles Pickering being striking examples. But the current Supreme Court nominee is the first in decades to explicitly introduce racial differences in their own words, along with the claim that their own racial or ethnic background makes them better qualified.
Attempts to claim that Judge Sonia Sotomayor's words were isolated remarks — a slip of the tongue "taken out of context" — have now been discredited by further information showing that she has repeatedly expressed the same ideas, in virtually the same words, at other times and in other contexts.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
ping
And PAYBACK works both ways.
Of course she's racist, Zero would never have named her if she weren't.
I love you, Dr. Sowell! Marry me!
It’s never been about “equality”. Revenge, payback, whatever you want to call it, has always been the goal and probably always will be.
It has little to do with being treated equally. Its always been about payback, revenge or whatever you want to call it.
Thanks for the ping to another excellent article by Dr. Sowell jaz.
I saw him first. However, you can have my place if you give me the chocolate.
Precisely. Payback is validation when it isn't directed against the offender. All it does is create new offenders. Put hoods and sheets on Jeremiah Wright and his cohorts and they'd be indistinguishable from the original owners.
Oh, man! Don’t make me choose between love and chocolate!
That’s as harsh as ‘Sophie’s Choice,’ LOL!
The racist fleshist world of “pay back” makes her boss and satisfies her perverse desires.
These people are freak mafya prostitution bosses of a loser world. If being a whore made her boss, she’d be a whore all the same.
This flesh for that flesh equalitarianism is the bottom line of liberal politics, fascism in desguise, narcissism and devil like premeditation of structures welcoming such people and system to conversion. It negates discussion of policy, promotes denial and invites drunken illiterate prides.
We are suffering persecutions under a sick sinful cult of boozers who want to be kept up boozing - from free sex to free health “care”. Al Capone is in charge, making sure his loser world keeps getting its subsidies and racket and drug pushing business supported.
It’s time we fight back, or, rather, ran away from this doom by fighting it off and shaking the dust from under our feet. The very past racist persecutors are the very same today calling for reparations, and they oddly used booze to attract black voters in this strangest of Kumbayas.
Sotomeyor Ping!
He always does what I strive to do but can't as much as I would like.
He refutes an argument in an elegant and hard-hitting way in the span of a one sentence.
Isn't this a Socratic form of argument?
As someone whose job necessitated frequent appearances in court, I encountered a number of judges like Judge Sotomayor. It wasn't pleasant appearing before them. They behave like tyrants in their own courtrooms.
For the record, Republicans MUST emphasize Sotomayor's racist comments and tendencies. It isn't clear to me how they could possibly successfully block her nomination. Even if they could, Obama will nominate another likeminded person in her place. They are peas in a pod. Obama is about payback as well.
Payback leads to blowback ....
Judge Sotomayor is not in jeopardy of either criminal or civil penalties. So there is no reason why either the criminal standard or proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" or the civil standard of "the preponderance of evidence" is required for determining whether she is the right person to be given a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land.I'd say that your love is requited, right there.. . . It is the American people as a whole who are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
And I agree with you. Every Republican presidential candidate since about 1980 has blundered by not nominating Thomas Sowell for VP. He should have been installed as a justice of SCOTUS long ago.
Absolutely, make everyone aware of it and perhaps she'll think twice when on that highest bench because I believe as you do there's no way to block her nomination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.