Posted on 05/27/2009 11:45:37 AM PDT by tobyhill
Just a day after President Obama announced he was nominating appellate court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the battle over her confirmation has begun with former House speaker Newt Gingrich branding her a racist and saying she should withdraw.
Gingrich today joined the chorus of conservatives such as Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, who called Sotomayor a "reverse racist."
The accusations are aimed at comments Sotomayor made during a 2001 lecture at the University of California-Berkeley. Referring to former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's saying that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," Sotomayor said, "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
>(Sotomayor hates White Males)<
Hope that there are enough white males with spine in either party that will see to it that she will not get on the SCOTUS.
FROM longermmemmory:
Sotomayer’s opinions are just downright kooky.
They are all out there for ANYONE to find.
http://www.findlaw.com may have them findable.
Does anyone have a list of the new members of the
______________________________________________
Pissant has been posting some of the cases on FR. Search Pissant (postings)
Newt is awesome.
Awesome yes. Presidential material no.
The bigotry behind this statement is main stream enough, that it shocks modern sensibilities to call it bigotry outside of conservative circles.
A few decades back in the South, it no doubt shocked sensibilities to object to bigotry against blacks. But today, not so much, because anti-black bigotry is not pervasive.
Obama has nominated an outspoken bigot to the court. And those offended by people calling her out as a bigot are little different than the old Dixiecrats of the South.
“Get use to it. We have at least 3 years and 8 months left.”
No. The term of a SC justice does not end with the President who nominated him.
I like this line of attack alot.
The term “racist” has needed a broader definition for years and now connotates someone who hires based on quotas. Sounds like a winner to me.
But, my piscine friend, they think that she's THEIR stooge.
No, that's not next. That proclamation has already been made. Did you forget about Robert Reich saying that white males need not apply for construction jobs created by the stimulus?
I suppose it could be argued that his remarks don't count since no jobs are actually being created by the stimulus.
Not necessarily ... oil and water still don’t mix. And race politics cuts many ways amongst the various races.
He’s the only one fighting these thugs!
Who the h*ll are you to gripe about Newt?
This judge a is a white man hater.
I doubt we will win this one. BO has the votes. Even if we win, he just replaces her with another radical leftist. Eventually he will get one confirmed.
So what we ought to be doing is figuring out how to use this appointment to paint BO as the radical he is. Bringing BO down is going to be a cumulative process. Cheney and Guantanamo helped. Using the current nomination to pull the covers on his radical identity politics is another. He’s particularly vulnerable there because of his associations with Louis Farrakhan and Rev Wright. We need to use this nomination to pull the scab off that wound.
In other words, the win here is a bite taken out of BO. The win is not forcing him to appoint a moderate to the court—that ain’t gonna happen. But he can be damaged by this woman’s radical opinions and statements and it will be a little harder for him to govern. The nomination process is the opportunity we have to highlight her radical background because the publicity spotlight is focused. Her opinions, if understood, will not be well received by the American public.
Unfortunately Sotomayor is probably the best pick Obama could make from my point of view. She isn’t likely to sway anyone on the court given her limited intellect, and she may just highlight how silly some liberal “legal opinion” really is.
Republicans should politely question her on constitutional issues, and point out the difference between liberal activism and constitutional law, and then allow the vote to go to the floor of the senate. They can vote against her there, but unless the Democrats toss her under the bus for lacking grey matter, the Republicans shouldn’t get too much in her way.
To do otherwise makes the Republicans look mean. That’s the disadvantage we face because the Democrats can always put simpathetic losers up for nomination. When Republicans try to nominate simpathetic judges, their nominees are either old white men, not black enough, not womanly enough, not poor enough, etc. Somehow if you are qualified to sit on the bench, and you aren’t a liberal, you’re unfit to be a judge. The same will never apply to liberal nominees.
The left has defined what "racism" is for almost 50 years, slowly altering it to mean only conservatives, especially men.
We - and the GOP - have the opportunity now to reposition the debate. We need simply to say, again and again, that:
"Republicans cannot, in good conscience, vote to put a racist on the Supreme Court."
Then the GOP unwaveringly stands on this principle. No debate. No rationalizations or PC semi-apologies. Repeat the stance and let the left defend Sotomayor's words and deeds.
Draw a line in the sand, define Sotomayor as undeniably racist - because she is - and make that sole issue.
Let the dems put her on the court with their own 60 votes and none of ours.
If the public sees her as the judicial dunce as she is ... you never know. Great stock was placed in public opinion about Alito and Roberts.
Agree the odds are long.
The bet is the parrot media will cover for her. At some point that bet will fail.
What do you think we've been told for the last twenty years?
White males need not apply?
Pretty much. A WM who graduated Texas A & M with my son (Class of ‘96) was not accepted into the Coast Guard officers program because they already had “enough W.M.’s”. The recruiters were seeking women and minorities. Screw the grades or aptitude for being a CG officer.
America is a racist country, why shouldn’t it have a racist Supreme Court justice.
It is time to concede that the Constitution is an adapting source of law. To give up judicial precedent will be required to get back to a more traditional meaning of the Constitution, rule of law not do as I say, liberty not serfdom, freedom not give me my daily bread. Relying on precedent means continuing down the same tract laid by the socialists.
You're right. But liberalism so dominates our thinking that even most conservatives accept basic liberal premises. Even when our guys fight the left, they often do it on the left's turf.
One of the basic premises of liberalism is that whites are uniquely wicked and are the inventors of racism. Non-whites are good and anything bad they might do is excused as a reaction against white depravity. So while it's good that Gingrich and a few conservatives are opposing Sotomayor and noting her hostility to whites, they still accept the underlying premise that whites are the cause of all racism. Whites had racist feelings against non-whites, which in turn has caused some non-whites such as Sotomayer to turn that racism against white people (i.e., reverse racism). White racism, in this view, was the ORIGINAL racism, the ORIGINAL sin, and thus remains worse.
Conservatives need to escape the ideological trap and verbal quagmire they've fallen into. Still, I guess we should be thankful that someone like Gingrich is at least fighting.
Yeah, whatever, Puta Fea.
You could maybe make a better taco than me.
And clean the bathroom after you do the laundry.
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.