elitist power
to the list

They want to tell you what kind of lightbulbs you can use. They want to tell you hat kind of toilet you can have. They want to tell you what kind of radio you can listen to. They want to tell you what to think…and what not to.

and chance snippets of dems speaking with an informed ear.

Firstly, no one imagined that Bork, Ginsburg (not Ruth), nor Nixons’ two Southern nominees would go down nor that Thomas would almost go down.

Secondly, Obama and the left understand the danger of Soto’s statement and Ricci decision quite well. That he allowed a Fridat msm interview to say what Soto- would now say was revealing.

Three, the silence of most dems on this matter.

Four, the very suspect statement of Ben Nelson of NE.

Five, Byrd and the other dems that voted for Alito are the targets.

Six, Soto’ is not popular with much of the elitist left. see TNR column from May 5

Seven, the GOP has very sympathetic witnesses from the Ricci plaintiffs and a hispanic liberal dem judge from her own court.

.

First, although it is true that no one can ever completely remove his experiences from his judgment. But the basis of Anglo-Saxon law, from which we derive our Constitution and on which the claim to equal rights is based, is itself dependent on attempting to, in as much as it is possible, remove one’s personal experiences from making the impartial judgment. So before we even get to the racist part, she is wrong.

Now, in the context of her specific quote, what she references are her “experiences as a Latino” that is, her experiences are based on her race. She says that those experiences will/should/ought (however you want to spin what she said) lead to “a better judgment than a white male would make.” In its simplest logical formulation: Latino female is better than white male. Which is a blatantly racist as well as sexist statement.

If I want to know the best and most authentic recipe for gazpacho or some other ethnic dish, then I might consult someone from that ethnicity for the info. When it comes to administering the law of the United State of America, you don’t put your personal stamp on it, you administer the law as written–no gender, no age, no race, no religion should tinge the decision in the least.

And this: If Chief Justice John Roberts in his confirmation hearing had said the following,” As a white man, I can bring a greater understanding of the law and render a wiser decision than a Latina woman. Or a black man. Or an Asian bisexual.” Don’t you think that his career would be over for those remarks? Given that he’s a conservative, they probably would have dragged him outside and hung him. BECAUSE HIS REMARKS WOULD BE RACIST.

was the Alito reference which is easily debunked* and is the typical troll defense of Sotomayor’s inherently racist comment. Not saying that Sotomayor is a racist but I can’t see how that comment can’t been seen as saying her racial experiences make her superior to other subordinate races and their trivial experiences.

* In Alito’s testimony he talked about his experiences as part of his “life story” but he clearly delineated between his feelings about those experiences and the fact that as a Judge on the highest court in the land he must only rely on the law and interpret it with a blind eye as intended by the founders.

And in doing so you left out the context in which Alito made his comment which allowed you to make Sotomayor’s statement to appear reasonable in comparison when in reality and in context the two statement s are actually in opposition to each other.

That is rationalizing not reasoning and I think you have proved your intent here and should problem just return to whichever part of the inter tubes that you came from.

leaves vague. The one you cite and reasonable searches is another, but even in these, the evaluation is mostly objective based on precedent and empirical data.

As a trial judge, one’s empathy is a bit more relevant, given discretion in sentencing and other issues.

But the thing about personal experiences is that they are like ass holes, we all have one.

The most important personal experience is whether it produces the character to avoid the temptation to make law and re-write the constitution while pretending not to thru rhetoric in opinions.

I’m really tired of your progressive thinner smoke screen.

No one is arguing the relevance of one’s life experience in informing one’s judgment. Of course it does for better or ill. The only question is whether one person’s life experiences, not defined by personal experience but by membership of a racial or ethnic group, inherently produces “better” decisions.

That premise, the one floated by Sotomayor, is racist by definition.

If we are going to go down the path of accepting the idea that one combination of race/ethnicity/gender renders “better:” judgments than another, then I cast my vote for the white men, they guys who wrote the Constitution and gave you Western Civilization.

Justices are to interpret the Constitution based upon ITS historical context, not theirs.

That is like asking some one to interpret a foreign language based on their life experinces rather than the grammar and vocabulary of the language. If they do, you get really stupid stuff. You know, the stuff that Sotomayor is made of.

“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.”

As far as I can see, this doesn’t say that the mere fact of her BEING Latina — the very fact of her membership in a certain racial/gender group — has contributed to her judgment. What it does say is (1) that going through certain experiences is likely to improve one’s judgment; and (2) that being a Latina makes one likelier to go through the relevant experiences.

Again, we can argue about whether these two claims are correct. It seems to me that they are, but I might be mistaken about that (plus, the alleged contribution of one’s group membership to one’s judgment skills could turn out to be real but insignificant). I don’t see, however, how these two claims are racist in any way — and I do think that they constitute a good interpretation of the above quote.

About your other claims:

(1) I don’t claim to be an expert on this (I’m not even American, I’m British), but from research I made in the past few days, it seems to me that calling La Raza “a racist organization” is ridiculous. For what it’s worth, I understand that Pres. G.W. Bush has had a decent relationship with the organization, as manifested in his 2000 speech at their annual convention.

(2) As for her ruling in that now-famous case: I don’t think support of affirmative action makes you a racist, or that affirmative action itself is a racist policy. Maybe we have different conceptions of racism. I understand racism, very generally speaking, to be either (a) the belief (absent compelling scientific evidence) that members of a certain racial or ethnic group are naturally superior in some crucial respect to members of other racial or ethnic groups; and/or (b) the belief that members of a certain racial or ethnic group deserve to be treated better than members of other racial or ethnic groups, *merely* because they belong to that group.

Affirmative action policies are not racist, according to this conception, because they don’t favor members of certain groups *merely* because they belong to those groups: rather, they favor members of certain groups either in order to correct for present acts of discrimination against those groups; or in order to compensate for disadvantages stemming from past discrimination; or for similar reasons. In all these cases, the policy favors blacks, or women (or whatever group), not simply because they are black or female, period, but because of one or more of the above-mentioned reasons.

Voting is a privelidge of those not engaged in trolling.

Although I have largely ignored your conversion of O2 into CO2.

Your “arguments”, if you want to call them that, are all rooted in the claim that an obviously racist statement — in a speech whose *point* was racist, from a woman whose background is clouded with obviously racist ruling from the bench (a violation of her oath) — has to be proven to be racist, to your satisfaction.

If you were to argue that the sky is not obviously blue, that we have to prove it’s blue to your satisfaction, THAT might be worth kicking the can around the yard, so to speak.

But this? Nah, not really. You are arguing from an absurd position, and you want to be taken seriously. This crowd demands from our trolls a little better.

Sorry, pal.

This is not that.

with “people who hold opposing views” to help us overcome our “psychological limitations”, then you are a more arrogant a$$ than I originally presumed.

You have lied (”The point was not to “sway” anyone… “) and misrepresented your purpose in being here. You further insult us with your presumption of our “psychological limitations” as they are obstacles to us being able to comprehend your “logic”.

And spare me your “That’s not what I said” bs. It’s what you meant.

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

“The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that’s also a hypocrite!”

Tennessee Williams

FORMIDABLE debater?

Brooks rob was a master baiter, but HARDLY a formidable DEbater.

It is the left’s own words that often best describe their own behavior. You are familiar with projection, aren’t you?

If I remove the attribution to Shaw, the statement is still a correct description of the poster’s behavior, is it not?

RedState does have a few regular commenters from the left who are welcome here because they do contribute to the site purposes.

We don’t want to be an echo chamber for the right; however, we’re not here to engage in debates between left and right - there are other sites better designed for that purpose.

This is a somewhat subtle point to flesh out, and perhaps others can do a better job, I can’t seem to elucidate the distinction today.

Regarding the topic of this post, points to consider:

1) Had Alito or Roberts made a similar statement about the superiority of their white experience, would they have had s ghost of a chance of confirmation?

2) My understanding from the larger conference is that other Hispanic panelists took serious issue with here contention

3) This statement suggests the Sotomayer is coming from a post-modern framework that defines truth as a social construct. and thus she accepts that which arises from the collective experience of her identity group as having the highest authority - and that an external document like the Constitution, history, and precedent must yield in subordination to that experience.

Your arguments were singularly unpersuasive. We all know a racist when we see it, and what you did was little more than saying, “No she isn’t”.

It is evident to an extreme degree that people on the left can get away with racist, hateful, and divisive comments at will, partly because there are useful idiots like you to constantly give them cover.

http://digg.com/d1slpy