REPUBLICAN RACISTS CRY "RACISM"
SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS "TOO HISPANIC"
Imperial Republican Grand Dragon Rush Limbaugh Marches Off To Work
SLIMIEST RACE-BAITERS ON EARTH ATTACK NOMINEE FOR BEING LATINA
"Rachel Maddow Responds To Rush Limbaugh "Reverse Racist" Crack"
Rachel tells it like it is.
The Party Of Lincoln Is Now The Party Of The Confederacy
Ever since Richard "I Am Not A Crook" Nixon teamed up with George "I'll Never Be Out-'N*ggered'" Wallace to subvert our country's electoral process in 1968, the GOP has been the Party of hatred and racism. Their strategy has always been to divide and conquer America on behalf of wealthy traitors and multinational corporations. It has worked remarkably well: Republicans like Nixon, Ford, Reagan & Bush and Lite Republicans like Carter and Clinton have run the country into the ground for over forty years. The result is an economy in shambles, a standard of living in ruins, and a paradise for rich foreign paracites and their traitorous buddies here, like Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Beck, Hannity, McConnell, Boehner, Rove, Gingrich and Cheney.
The fact that most Americans now reject their race-baiting doesn't faze them. With no coherent political philosophy, wildly unpopular Party policies, and nothing positive to offer Americans they have made to suffer with their failed strategies, race is all they have left. It still appeals to their mentally ill base in the South, and wherever sad losers gather elsewhere to share teabags. With enough electoral fraud and dirty tricks, Republican racist appeals might just succeed in limiting their losses in the next few elections and guaranteeing their survival. That will give them time to plan and execute or encourage acts like 9/11 and political assassinations. In chaos, there is opportunity.
How else could a few rich fat nasty old white guys get anybody to vote for their selfish bullsh*t? Even with all the help in the world from the tame corporate media, they can't hope to win fairly. So it's back to the racialist drawing board. And it's time to tune them out for good.
NY DAILY NEWS
"GOP Holy Trinity on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor: She's a 'racist'
The pot-bellied calling the kettle a sp*c.
' Never ones to shy away from a fight -- even a losing one -- the Holy Trinity of the GOP -- Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh -- have taken to calling the Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor a 'racist,' with Gingrich even going so far as to ask her to withdraw. Immediately after the announcement on Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh was the first to started banging the war drum by calling Sotomayor a "horrible choice" and "a racist ... or reverse racist." '
THE AMERICAN PROSPECT
"THE SOUTHERN STRATEGY AGAINST SONIA SOTOMAYOR."
Same old "conservative" racist bullsh*t.
' A case against Sotomayor based on her "credentials" or "intelligence" is false on its face--this is a kind of Southern Strategy all over again. By stoking white resentment over the rise of allegedly unqualified minorities getting prominent positions, the GOP is hoping to derail her nomination. It probably won't work, but it's another sign of how little the GOP learned from last year's election. '
"Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases"
One thing about judges: Every word is on the official, permanent public record: These decisions are who she really is, as a judge.
' Judge Sonia Sotomayor is an obviously serious candidate to serve on the Supreme Court. We have been struck by how the amount of commentary about Judge Sotomayor has ignored the most accessible and valuable source of information: her opinions as an appellate judge. Last year, I directed a project in which a team of Akin Gump summer associates extensively reviewed Judge Sotomayor’s opinions. Amy Howe subsequently revised and expanded their work, with contributions by me. Here, we make our first effort at summarizing what we regard as Judge Sotomayor’s principal opinions in civil cases. Our only goal is to identify and summarize the opinions, not evaluate them. A summary of additional civil cases, as well as Judge Sotomayor’s leading criminal law opinions will follow. '
"Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases"
The judge's actual resume: Not a member of Mecha (She's not Mexican, Rush...)
' (CNN) -- Here is a look at the resume and record of federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whom President Barack Obama has chosen as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.• Age 54 (Born June 25, 1954, New York City) Judicial Career • U.S. Appeals Court judge, 2nd Circuit, 1998-present • U.S. District Court judge, 1992-1998 • Nominated to federal bench by Bush in 1991, Clinton in 1997 Government/Legal Career • Former N.Y. County Assistant District Attorney, 1979-1984 • Former private practice attorney, Pavia & Harcourt, New York, 1984-1992 Politics • Confirmed by Senate 67-29 in 1998 • Confirmation to current seat took over 1 year • Was opposed by majority of GOP senators • Was unopposed in 1991 confirmation process Historic Milestones If Nominated • Would be first Hispanic Supreme Court justice • Would be third female Supreme Court Justice (second on current Court) Education • J.D., Yale Law School, 1979 • B.A., Princeton, 1976 (summa cum laude) '
"Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’ "
The entire "racist" statement, in context. Fair & balanced.
' Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement..
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor -- I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area - Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.
That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. '
TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:
Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!