Posted on 05/31/2009 12:38:53 PM PDT by advance_copy
Look at the resumes of the last two candidates for the Supreme Court - Justice Samuel Alito and recent nominee Sonia Sotomayor - and a surprising number of similarities emerge.
Born four years apart, they both grew up Roman Catholic in modest homes wanting to be judges, attended the same Ivy League schools, became prosecutors in their first full-time jobs and served more than a decade on the circuit court.
And both have remained closely tied to their ethnic roots and the communities where they grew up: Alito, 59, as an Italian American in New Jersey, and Sotomayor, 54, as a Puerto Rican in the Bronx.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
-- Samuel Alito
Justice Alito did acknowledge his perspective as the descendant of Italian immigrants. But this is far from the evident bigotry represented in Sotomayor’s speech. In fact, Alito was expressing his personal desire to defeat discrimination based on racial superiority.
Let’s examine Sotomayor’s statement again:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
-- Sonia Sotomayor
Sotomayor did not simply state that her background would add diversity to the bench. She asserted that her judgement is superior to that of a white male because of her race. Justice Alito never expressed this kind of racial superiority; he never would be cause he does not believe in it.
Her blatant claim of racial superiority should disqualify Sotomayor. For it is this same mental dysfunction of racial superiority that caused slavery. It was used to justify the Holocaust. That racial superiority infects Arab Jinjaweed militants to justify their slaughter of black Africans in Darfur.
Sadly, this is evident here in our own country where Latino criminal gangs are targeting blacks and whites because they claim “racial superiority”. La Raza, an organization to which Sotomayor belongs, seems to condone such ethnic cleansing rooted in the same racist bigotry expressed by Sotomayor, though they might not admit it openly.
Newt Gingrich is right. Sotomayor is a bigot. And her nomination should be withdrawn; or, if not withdrawn, the United States Senate should reject it.
======================================
Wonder who she's communicating with? (/snic). Should be part of the nomination process----submitting her cell phone records and email messages from the date of nomination.
Sotomayor's now-famous 32 words: "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."
Translated into white male-ese: "I'm gonna make those gringos pay bigtime for those Frito Bandido commercials."
Another attempt by the media to focus on the personal life of Sotomayor, so that her inept judicial record is ignored or diluted.
I don’t recall that Newsday strongly favored Alito when he was up for confirmation.
Something about obeying the constitution and respecting the inalienable right to life, I think.
Other than the fact that one loves our country, respects the Constitution, and believes in equal treatment for all, and the other apparently scorns all these things, they are the same.
Except that she’s a Latino woman, so she’s special. He’s only Italian for the purpose of this propaganda piece; otherwise, he’s just a white male.
one’s a racist,
and one is not a racist.
Samuel Alito rose above his humble beginnings, and established his faith in the promise of America.
Sonia Sotomayor has never had faith in the promise of America, her guiding light has been “La Raza”, the ultimate establishment of the SUPERIORITY of the wisdom of Latina females.
Can you say “overreach”?
Alito was overturned 50% of the time?
I would like to know who paid for the educations they both received?
How did they get into those schools?
Alito was trying to placate the liberals in the Senate; Sotomayor is playing to the home crowd - that’s a pretty significant difference.
“Leading GOP senators on Sunday passed up the chance to stifle racially charged criticism of Sonia Sotomayor by fellow Republicans as the party out of power in Washington struggled to develop a unified political strategy to oppose the first Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court.”
The present GOP leadership is the ruination of the party. Is it because the present wussie RNC chair is black?
The entire MSM says so!
I suppose I was a little too quick on the draw.
and one is not a racist."
And one is a communist.
And one is not communist.
A senator should ask a question of her
Do you think you would be superior to Congress full of white mans once you are on SCOTUS. Do you think you know how to run the country better than white mans
Is Alito a lesbian, too?
Kidding, kidding. I have no idea what Ms. S’s proclivities are. However, it could be another first for the Democrats! The first gay Supreme Court Judge!
Early in her career, Sotomayor worked for La Raza Unida. (That means "the united race." It's logo was the US Southwestern states that Mexico wants to get back. It has now changed its name and logo to conceal the intentions of the invasion from the South.)
Newsday is a participant in the "Sotomayor is not THAT dangerous" cabal. But she IS that dangerous. See below.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "An Open Letter to Sonia Sotomayor"
Latest article, "Ben Franklin (Congressman Billybob) at Knoxville Tea Party"
There is no direct confirmation but the story goes that Ms. S is in fact replacing the first gay Supreme Court Judge.
Note: the above is rumor and innuendo, not fact. But the little dust up after midnight in the DC park was pretty suspicious.
This is the latest liberal line - they must have had bloggers researching every word from Thomas, Roberts, and Alito and they came up with this:
“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination....And I do take that into account”. Alito made similar statements as to chidren, disability, immigration, gender, etc. followed by “I can’t help but _think_ of my own family, etc. etc.”
So today on Meet the Depressed, David Gregory set up a ‘gotcha’ question on Sen. Sessions - let him go on how Sotomayor’s statement wasn’t necesarily what we want in a judge, etc. and then Gregory ask him “Is it appropriate to “take into account” one’s personal story, etc.” And of course Sessions continued holding on ‘blind justice’. Then Gregory popped the clip of Alito’s statement on him.
As I emailed Rush:
I’m sure we’ll be seeing this clip all week and I’ll admit that for most people viewing it, it will look like Gregory makes Sessions into a hypocrite or that he makes him eat Sam Alito’s words, but few will notice that there is a differentiation between “consideration” and “decision”.
One may go through multiple considerations on a problem before coming to a decision or conclusion.
I’ve always thought about this in an analogy of the ‘brainstorming’ that went on within the Kennedy Administration with regards to Castro. Many things were _considered_ and the purpose of brainstorming is to come up with any idea, even the craziest, where it might cause another to take a slightly different angle. So bringing up the idea of assassination might arise but while it might be rejected out of hand, it is a ‘consideration’ that was discussed. The conclusion might be very different from many of the considerations that arose and **one cannot equate a consideration with a conclusion**. And this is the case in comparing Sotomayor’s statement with Justice Alito’s during his confirmation.
His statement was that he would ‘take into account’ (ie. take into consideration) the ethnic background of his family members - the actual transcript gives a bunch of examples
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/day3-text.html?pagewanted=18
- disability, gender, children, immigration but of course David targeted ethnicity. And in asking Session’s he used Alito’s exact phrase “take into account” before popping the clip on him. My guess is that Leahy knew this was coming ahead of time (by virtue of his prior statement - that mentions the points David shows in the clip - almost a tag team here) and the Sessions was blindsided.
Going back to the ‘consideration’/’conclusion’ dichotomy. If you read the whole statement that David presented from Sotomayor, all of her statements pointed to ‘decisions’, ‘conclusions’ and ‘judgments’. In fact, when she quoted Justice O’Connor as saying that old men and old women would come to the same _conclusion_’ Sotomayor said she disagreed with that statement and while I haven’t dug up the context of the O’Conner statement, my guess is that there is some discussion about ‘considerations’ or ‘what might be taken into account’ before she gave the statement of ‘equal conclusion’ regarding old men and women. But regardless, Sotomayor’s statements are aimed at conclusions rather than considerations. And there’s a difference there and it is a signicant one. One may even say, as Sessions implied, that _that_ is where empathy can come into play - in considering a case, but _NOT_ in deciding one. That is where the rule of law takes over any bias.
Frankly, the statement that she made may be perfectly acceptable for someone running for the House where they want to ‘connect’ with their constituency but for blind justice it is so inappropriate that she should be dismissed out of hand.
This has nothing to do with Michael Steele. The GOP leadership has been this way for several years.
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.