Posted on 05/16/2010 9:16:09 AM PDT by Nachum
American conservative political commentator Pat Buchanan wrote a column titled 'Are liberals anti-WASP' last week, in which he suggested that if Supreme Court justice nominee Elena Kagan is confirmed, there will be a disproportionately large number of Jews on the Supreme Court bench.
In his column for World Net Daily, Buchanan lamented the fact that since 1965, no Democratic president has nominated a black Supreme Court justice, but that "if Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats."
(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...
Of course that is the point, however Pat is the only one willing to point out that there is one no touch ethnic/religious third rail in America.
.....Is Pat using “Jews” as a race or religion? .....
Neither. He is referring to a political cabal of like minded liberals who want to prevent a holocaust. They have selected America as the only place that is possible.
It excludes all Freepers and especially those Jews who are conservative.
Throughout my life, it has seemed to me that Jews are very uncomfortable and leery of protestant America and evangelical protestant America in particular, like we're going to jump on them and drag them off to be baptized or speak in tongues or handle serpents. The biggest single Christian denomination are the various Baptists, yet there will be none on the SC.
Something I particularly dislike about the makeup of this court is that there are too many urbanites, too many northeasterners, and too many from the Ivy League. These are elitists.
If Pat is making the point that there will be no one on the court sympathetic to the interests of conservative Christians who are not Catholic--it's a point worth taking. I get tired of the kneejerk Pat bashing here, while I'm no fan it seems that reactions to his perceived antisemitism are much exaggerated and posturing, considering how US Jews themselves act consistently against Israel's interests. He has little influence outside of what we conservatives have given him.
Two words...straw man.
“Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats”
Yeah, and 20% of Nobel prizes. Is it a conspiracy, Pet?
Buchanan is a plant. A democrat plant. He has nothing to do with conservatives.
JFTR, isn’t Scalia Italian-American?
Boy, oh boy .....JINOs ....I never heard that term before. did you coin it, so to speak? Regardless, JINO... that’s a term that should be given wide circulation, especially by Jews. It is an enlightening education as well as a very accurate explanation of what’s really happening, should get a lot of circulation! Non-Jews don’t realize that being a Jew has nothing to do with religion, its a birthright, a triable membership status (MOT), into which you are born or convert, even if you don’t deserve it. JINO. Profund!!!! Sperad it around....I’m using it from now on. Thanks/ Todah!!!
Would it make Pat feel better to get a Protestant Ultra-liberal on the Bench? What the hell is the difference?
PJB is nutty.
Moses... Solomon...Daniel...Jesus...Paul...Peter...
too many Jews for Pat ... ?
Either you are just kidding, you’re 8 years old, or you’re an idiot, or all three. You sure as hell don’t want a legal rep who is not a competent trained and licensed lawyer, and you SURE AS HELL don’t want judges like that. Ignorance and abstraction, are apparently BLISS.
Oh, I think Levin’s hearings would be just as entertaining as Coulter’s would be. Could you imagine either one of them taking questions from Franken?
I don’t think that Pat’s being stupid here at all. The liberals constantly cry about making everything properly representative. 33% of the seats on a court representing 2% of the population does not fit the bill. Of course, these sort of things shouldn’t be taken into account at all, but the Left insists that they must be. I think we all know that O’Connor was put on the Court because she is a woman, Sotomayor because she is Hispanic, Thurgood Marshall because he was black, etc. But, the Left only wants their own favored groups represented, while the largest group in the nation (white Protestants) are not represented at all, and they say nothing about that. It is anti-Democratic to say that all groups must be represented except for the majority. I’m glad Pat is calling them out on their hypocrisy. People here calling Pat stupid are just letting the Left get away with their biased hypocrisy.
We need the conservative messianic Jews on our court..not the liberal Israel hating type!
Observing many of my Jewish friends and associates (I'm not Jewish except that I do follow "The Jewish Carpenter," so I do consider myself one of the "chosen"), in that they are so totally non-faithful.
In fact many come to me to explain some of their "roots" and issues of faith.
They attend "Reform Temples" and to a person, champion abortion (oops, right to "choose") gay relationships and all things anti-Jehovah.
In fact, many support Muslims' "rights" to the Holy Land.
When I quote such things as "Those who bless you, I will bless.....", not so small number have never heard the verse and when I showed them a map of the land given to Abraham/Moses and the 12 sons of Jacob(Israel), they don't believe it. Of course, they really don't believe in God/Jehovah, while claiming they do.
So sad but they are all JINOs!
Restornu, why do you think that Pat is “smearing a whole race”? I don’t see that at all. Pat’s just being realistic here. For the past several decades Supreme Court justices have to a large extent been chosen on the basis of representational diversity. That is how the Left has insisted it be, and the Right (including Reagan) has been generally happy to go along with that idea.
If the court is supposed to be representational (which is the way it has been formulated in recent times, whether you like it or not), then it is highly discriminatory to totally ignore Protestants, the largest religious group in the nation. Jews are the group that are currently by far the most over-represented on the court based on their percentage of the population. It’s not a smear to say so; it’s a fact, as I’m sure you know. Pat realizes there is a lot of hypocrisy going on here. It is not anti-Semitic to note how certain groups are being favored and other groups are being greatly disfavored.
I personally would prefer that issues like this weren’t taken into account at all, and I bet Pat feels the same. But they are; that’s a fact of life. If you are going to apply certain rules, then you need to apply them fairly across the board. This is Pat’s point, and it is silly to suggest that it is anti-Semitic.
Yeah, Brandeis, Cardozo, Goldberg, Fortas, Ginsburg and Breyer were/are all quite liberal.
You have a long wait ahead. If the Republicans could get 30% of the Jewish vote, it will will get the job done. They went about 90% for Obama. Go figure.
It's not as if his feelings and intentions vis-a-vis Israel were a dark secret.
That’s absolute nonsense. After his “Culture Wars” speech in 1992, Bush’s numbers absolutely shot up immediately! Look it up. He made a lot of people see that installing the socially liberal, pot-smoking, draft-dodging Clinton would be a bad idea. Ross Perot handed the election to Clinton, not Buchanan. Look at the numbers.
There’s not too many Catholics. If anything we’ve had too few Catholic presidents.
Anytime a Protestant wants to talk about the “Protestant disenfranchisement” on the court I’ll be glad to but if I do that then they’ll have to discuss the 1928 Election with me.
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.