Show me a Montana girl of un-useful ethnicity who put herself through law school waiting tables, after being left with two young children when her Army husband was killed overseas, and I’ll start oohing and aahing over her compelling story.

Well, the Derb’s correspondent might have someone specific in mind, but I don’t know who it could be. But how about a small-town Texas girl? One of “un-useful ethnicity” who was third in her class at Stanford and still couldn’t get any of the big law firms to offer her anything better than a job as a secretary? Who took a series of public jobs beneath her skill level because the elite firms wouldn’t take a second look? Who was appointed to the state legislature by a governor of the opposition party? Who dared to stand up to members of her own party on abortion issues?

Someone like that would never end up on a President’ short list, would she?

I dunno.  The army husband would never have been killed in action if he had been the genuine article, would he have?  Why didn’t he leave the wife any death insurance?  Didn’t he plan?  What happened to the waitress’s male relatives that they allowed her to descend to waiting tables?  Lots of things wrong with whiteness there, from what I can see.

This requires a BoingBoing-style unicorn chaser.

To be fair, I think we’d all be thrilled by the widow with two children who put herself through law school waiting tables (They sure tip well in Montana!) and graduated first in her class. Provided her rulings showed she wasn’t a jackass. Hopefully, her experiences would give her compassion to working class people, to the demands of motherhood, and to women’s issues in general.

But *his* dream widow probably scorns workers who should be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like she did (grandparents took care of the kids, she lived with her folks, the table waiting was pocket money, not survival), considers other mothers inferior to her, and scorns childless women as unnatural.

But, I’m shocked he’s actually suggesting a theoretical woman as a candidate.

If Obama were to appoint a woman who graduated from the University of Montana Law School after waiting on tables to work her way through, the right would be claiming she is biased against religion:

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/05/court-upholds-montana-law-schools.html

Wow. I wasn’t sure how they’d jam in some anti-intellectualism and “East Coast Elite” hatred to complement the Know-Nothings’ racism and anti-immigrant xenophobia, but by cracky “the Derb” has done it. Bravo!

Show me a Montana girl of un-useful ethnicity who put herself through law school waiting tables, after being left with two young children when her Army husband was killed overseas, and I’ll start oohing and aahing over her compelling story.

Yes, women only count if they fulfill their obligation to have at least two children, and make sure they do this before they even consider going to law school.

Samantha Vimes:

But, I’m shocked he’s actually suggesting a theoretical woman as a candidate.

He only made it a hypothetical woman so he could say “See? I don’t just want it to be white men.  I care about someone.”  I’m sure that if this hypothetical woman existed, he wouldn’t support her.

Every time I read anything from Derbyshire, I wish that Bruce Lee had kicked just a little bit harder…

Shorter Derbyshire: If you’re not giving me things just because I’m white and you actually require me to earn what I have, then you’re racist.

Even after Sotomayor becomes part of the Supreme Court, it will still be 66% people who are both white and male.  Maybe when white males aren’t automatically considered superior, and are equally represented or under-represented in the Supreme Court, then I might take Derbyshire a little more seriously.  But when he’s whining that they’re not over-represented enough, he just sounds like a baby throwing a tantrum because suddenly his mom isn’t giving him free lollipops just for being cute enough, and now he has to actually work for what he wants just like everyone else.

Every time I read anything from Derbyshire, I wish that Bruce Lee had kicked just a little bit harder…

Wow, I hadn’t known that about Derbyshire . . . and the movie he was in was the same one in which Lee killed Chuck Norris, so there’s a bonus for watching it!

I can’t help but think “reader”, Perveyshire, and the average National Review reader would be even more in favor if “army widow” was a male army soldier whose wife died while he was bravely defending Freedom in Iraq.  “Army widow” would benefit from all that affirmative action unfairly available to women, which would be just another “story of privilege, dammit, not adversity”, whereas “army widower” would have to pull his white ass up by the bootstraps in a world where being white is a major impediment to success, somehow.

I mean, just imagine how tough it must have been for the worthless son of a mediocre president, who spent most of his life pretending to be from Texas even though he’s a born-‘n-bred New Englander through and through, who had to struggle through each and every self-caused business or political setback, until daddy’s friends bailed him out 5-minutes later, who had to depend on his family name and position to gain entry to two prestigious ivy league universities instead of being given a slot because of his gender or ethnicity, who had the governorship of Texas purchased for him, who had the presidency purchased for him, etc.

It must have been pure hell to be Bush Jr., and his life is just a tiny glimpse into the horrific existence of the White Male in American society.

Let us all bow our heads and observe a moment of silence in recognition of their brave struggles…

“I’m sure that if this hypothetical woman existed, he wouldn’t support her. “

Ding ding ding.

You know, the minimum death insurance offered by the Army is $250,000. So….

You cut off the end of the e-mail and the Corner responses:

“P.S. If I might say, John, you are super strong and cool and don’t look anything like the guy who was transporting the alien around in Repo Man.”

Re: Totally Warranted Praise [John Derbyshire] Why thank you, anonymous reader! And what do you think about me, Clyde Frog?

Re: I Think You’re A Big Piece of Crap [Clyde Frog] n/m

Re: HEY! [John Derbyshire] n/m

Damn that Obama, picking a super-qualified hispanic woman just because she actually exists, without even considering the imaginary white war-widow Montanan woman!

Luckily, nobody takes Derbyshire seriously.  Besides NAMBLA.

Okay, so.  How many white men were able to climb out of poverty without the educational and real estate advantages of the GI bill?

I’m waiting ...

That said, sure, Sotomayor had a lot of advantages that I didn’t have, but that is a convenient way to distract from her very solid and lengthy record as a federal justice.  So is quoting a graduation speech out of context.

simple fact: advantages, disadvantages, etc. make no difference here.  Sotomayor is qualified.  Period.  We may disagree with her judicial temperment or her particular decisions or most of her decisions - but at lest we know what those are and how she is likely to conduct herself on the high court as a result (unlike the arguably more disadvantaged, very talented, and completely unknown lawyer Estrada).

You know, the minimum death insurance offered by the Army is $250,000. So….

Which is not enough to support two children over a lifetime BUT it is enough to see you through some lean years if a widow or widower wants to invest it in higher education that will support those kids. (yes, I know people who have done exactly this).

3 words or one name, Sandra Day O’Connor.  Been there, done that.

Sorry Quaker, I see you were far ahead of me.

I think the biggest fear of the Derbyshites isn’t that there is ONE qualified latina out there but LEGIONS of qualified non-white, non-men out there who got their foot in the door due to increased equity in the educational systems and ran with the ball.

I’m seriously surprised that these guys aren’t shadowing the NFL or NBA draft to make sure that there is no affirmative action.  The credentials of particular players are available, verifyable and debatable, but not questioned and certainly not questioned on the basis of race or ethnicity!  You don’t hear any credible person talking in terms of “so and so is only getting a big contract because he is black” or “so and so only played for Enormous State because they favor black players”.

I don’t see the situation with Sotomayor or anyone who comes after as being much different in terms of quality of resume, particularly since we have a solid constitutional law wonk in the oval office who will (or has) personally vetted the list of candidates and grilled Sotomayor for seven hours on the subject.

Oooh, I got it ...

How about a poor, southern white male candidate whose father died in a job-related accident before he was even born.  Who was placed in the care of his grandparents at an early age so his mother could attend nursing school and support her family.  Whose mother then married a man who became an abusive alcoholic that he had to threaten once he grew tall.  Who won scholarships to Yale and then attended Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship, returning to his home state after completing his legal education, running for and being elected governor multiple times.

Oh, but I think they would really HATE that guy.

Anyone else notice that Derbyshire basically just told the story of Sotomayor’s mother, who was widowed at a young age and left with two children to raise?  She worked her ass off as a nurse, made huge sacrifices, and was able to get a good education for her kids, one of whom is a federal judge and the other a doctor.

But, of course, that’s such an ordinary story that Derbyshire doesn’t even think it’s worthy of mention.

Funny, it was just a month ago that saint Scalia told a bunch of students that unless you went to an Ivy school you can kiss a significant law career goodbye. I don’t recall any conservatives expressing their outrage then . . .

So when you’re a latina, you have to measure up to some mythical white single mother (why didn’t she remarry like she should have), but when you’re a whilte guy it’s a great thing that you’ve spend your entire life in the corridors of power (Roberts), or it’s a sign of true empathy for adversity if your parents were immigrants from one of the most cultured nations in the world (Alito).

No wonder the US keeps falling behind our economic competitors.

Better be careful how you spend that money, though, Ms. Kate. There was a recent case of an Army widow who was convicted of murder based on her ‘inappropriate’ behavior after her husband’s death. Supposedly she killed him with arsenic, which stays in the body forever and leaves obvious signs of its presence. He didn’t have arsenic in his body. The conviction was overturned but that didn’t make big nes and the lesson was: you’re not allowed to spend that money because a jury of your peers will believe you’re a murdering bitch if you dare to keep on living after the sainted hubbie dies.

“Oh, but I think they would really HATE that guy.”

...boy would they ever.  Talk about your Somebody Derangement Syndrome. 

And, or course, there has been talk over the years about the possibility of him being nominated for SCOTUS too (Bill and Hillery both, actually).  Wouldn’t that have just blown all their minds…

”...you’re not allowed to spend that money because a jury of your peers will believe you’re a murdering bitch if you dare to keep on living after the sainted hubbie dies.”

Aren’t you supposed to throw yourself onto your husband’s funeral pyre?...

I LOVE challenges, Derb.

Famous Montanans:

Dorothy Baker author, Missoula
Dirk Benedict actor, Helena
W. A. Tony Boyle labor union official, Bald Butte
Dana Carvey comedian, Missoula
Gary Cooper actor, Helena
Chet Huntley journalist, TV newscaster, Cardwell
Will James writer, artist, Great Falls
Evel Knievel daredevil motorcyclist, Butte
Jerry Kramer football player, author, Jordan
Myrna Loy actress, Helena
David Lynch filmmaker, Missoula
George Montgomery actor, Brady
Jeannette Rankin first woman elected to Congress, Missoula
Martha Raye actress, Butte
Michael Smuin choreographer
Lester C. Thurow economist, educator, Livingston

Please, Derb, take special note of Jeanette Rankin.

Affirmative action my fucking ass. I was born in the Bronx to Irish Catholic parents and I know about Spellman- it is quite a distinguished school. Getting into it in the first place is far from easy, let alone graduating as valedictorian. Regardless of ethnicity Sotomayor would have been eagerly snapped up by any college in the country. And not only did she graduate with a summa from Princeton, she also won an extremely competitive prize there which is destined for each class’s TOP senior. I’m no slouch in the education department (Harvard undergrad, biochemistry Ph.D. from Northwestern) and I guarantee you this women is about five times as fucking smart as I am, and smarter than 100,000 Derbyshires put together

I’m so sick and tired of racist asshole misogynist fucktards like Derb or Idiot Fred Barnes libeling their betters-by-far.

Well I guess Sotomayor’s life of privilege is indistinguishable from Teresa Heinz Kerry’s. And if wise Latina Teresa Heinz Kerry had been picked for the Supreme Court, we wouldn’t be all falling over ourselves, correct? (Assuming she had gone to law school ‘n’ stuff.)

But Derbyshire’s tale of law school injustice made me think: What if Sotomayor had accepted, say, a full ride to Brooklyn Law School? Or St. John’s? How likely would she be the nominee today?

”...and smarter than 100,000 Derbyshires”

I propose that IQ be replaced with DQ — the Derbyshire Quotient, which would represent how many Derbyshires required to represent someone’s level of intelligence.

OTOH, if 100,000 Derbyshires sat in front of 100,000 laptops, the universe would not last long enough for them to recreate My Pet Goat, so maybe that wouldn’t work so well…

I think the distinctions here are clear: you aren’t supposed to rise to the top because the playing field was leveled to make things more fair for everybody.  You are instead supposed to cultivate right wing patrons who raise you up of their own good will and be forever grateful for that patronage by claiming that you are just special and all those other people without patrons are dirt.

Why?  Because the level playing field or the compensations to fairness turn disadvantaged people into uncontrollable liberals, that’s why!  The right wing patronage system ensures that the best and brightest stay under tight control.

“You don’t hear any credible person talking in terms of “so and so is only getting a big contract because he is black” or “so and so only played for Enormous State because they favor black players”.”

Actually, Rush Limbaugh said something very close to this about Donovan McNabb of the Philadelphia Eagles, but I see your criteria rules out Rush.

“Actually, Rush Limbaugh said something very close to this about Donovan McNabb of the Philadelphia Eagles, but I see your criteria rules out Rush.”

Everything was okay there for a while, but then those Negroes started to think they could be quarterbacks.  Since that is a leadership position, and obviously not suited to their temperament, Rush just just trying to point out the obvious.

Sotomayor is nominated for SCOTUS.  That’s just too high for our wingnuts.  If she was nominated instead as a law clerk for Scalia, that would be okay with the Reichwing…maybe…

If she was nominated instead as a law clerk for Scalia

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are her skills really up to the task? Can she make a good cup of coffee? Might she forget Scalia takes cream and no sugar? How is she at picking up the drycleaning?

Read for a long time, but have not commented, but this just makes my head explode!

Let’s be honest about race.

There are racial set-asides in contracting with public entities and there are racial preferences in hiring for public jobs. And now we have a nomination that was obviously made because of race.

All of these racial choices seem to be OK because it disadvantages whites. If any of these were reversed, the howling would be deafening so let’s cut the crap here and call it what it is…..“White Disadvantage”.

This is a clearer term and can actually be defined whereas ‘racism’ can’t.

“Shorter Derbyshire: If you’re not giving me things just because I’m white and you actually require me to earn what I have, then you’re racist.”

This is the most truest statement ever about “white privelege” obsessed repubs. Bravo!

Ooookay: “If any of these were reversed, the howling would be deafening so let’s cut the crap here and call it what it is…..“White Disadvantage”.” ???

...and yet you claim: “Read for a long time…”

Somethings not right here…and it ain’t Pandagon…

we have a nomination that was obviously made because of race.

Alright, you know what? You obviously haven’t been reading, and I, for one, am not going to bother repeating every single argument that’s been made just for the benefit of trying to cure your self-chosen ignorance.

If any of these were reversed, the howling would be deafening

You mean if we had a Supreme Court composed of eight Latinas and one black man, the howling would be deafening if we nominated a white man to replace one of the Latinas?

Frankly, I’m having a hard time imagining this.

Did you hear that Karl Rove said that he knows “a lot of stupid people who graduated from Ivy League schools”?

HE would KNOW.
Just when you think these douches can’t get any douchier…

“Frankly, I’m having a hard time imagining this.”

...apparently “long time reader” Boyz in the White House thinks SCOTUS is already constructed that way, which is why he’s so concerned that No White Man Will Ever Be Nominated Again!...

And now we have a nomination that was obviously made because of race.

Dear <strike>asshat</strike> Boyz….

Why, do pray tell, is it “obvious?”  Is it because she’s a Latina and therefore she couldn’t possibly be qualified?  Is there something in her history that leads you to say that?

If a person ever appoints a minority for anything how can you tell they’re “obviously” doing if for AA reasons and not for competence.

I await enlightenment.

Holy shit.  Here is AP’s example of Sotomayor “highlight[ing] her Puerto Rican roots but hasn’t always liked it when others have”:

Yet years ago, during a recruiting dinner in law school at Yale, Sotomayor objected when a law firm partner asked whether she would have been admitted to the school if she weren’t Puerto Rican, and whether law firms did a disservice by hiring minority students the firms know are unqualified and will ultimately be fired.

I didn’t realize that saying, “Yes, I’m Puerto Rican and proud of it” and “Aren’t you just here because people felt sorry for you because you’re Puetro Rican?” are exactly the same thing.  Silly me.

What if Sotomayor had accepted, say, a full ride to Brooklyn Law School? Or St. John’s? How likely would she be the nominee today?

No.

It’s that simple, Hector B.  Forgive me Lords for the sin of self-quoting, but I posted this on another Pandagon thread:

I’m rather more troubled by the fact that Presidents seem to think that Harvard and Yale are the only two faculties of law in the US of A capable of producing a USSC justice.  Only Stevens (age 89, appointed 1975, Northwestern University School of Law) and Ginsburg (Columbia) aren’t from those schools.  By way of contrast, only two of Canada’s 9 Supreme Court Justices went to the same school: both Binnie J and Abella J got their LL.B.s from U of T[oronto].

Tyro subsequently noted:

I think that the legal system in general has taken a turn in this direction. Law seems to be the most prestige-conscious profession I’m aware of. The lawyers who went to the top schools get the top clerkships, who are the ones who get the choice government or firm positions who are the ones who attract the attention of presidents for federal bench appointments, and so on. By the time this filters itself out, you’re left with candidates who only went to a few top schools.

Meanwhile, I’ve never heard of a patient or a referring doctor basing their choice of physician on which medical school they attended.

Also of note is sjk on 05/29 at 10:39 AM; do read the blog entry to which he links.

I can’t believe that I pulled such a doofus error.  It’s Binnie JA and Abella JA (or Binnie and Abella JJA, if you prefer).

Idiot.

And now we have a nomination that was obviously made because of race.

Yes, clearly a woman who graduated summa cum laude, won an undergraduate leadership award that’s only given out twice a year, was an editor of the Yale Law Review in law school, and has been a federal judge for 17 years is completely unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. 

John Roberts with his similar academic background but only 2 years of experience as a federal judge?  Completely qualified to be not just a Supreme Court Justice, but the perfect candidate to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

There’s a nomination here that was obviously made because of race, but it ain’t Sotomayor’s.

Shorter Troll boyz:  But, but that black person doesn’t have to sit at the back of the bus anymore! That’s no fair!  That’s white disadvantage!!!

Boyz in the White House?

Seriously?

Shouldn’t you be brushing your tooth or fornicating with a farm animal there, Cletus?  Isn’t their some Klan meeting you could be at right now?

Seeker:

Ego te absolvo æternæ.  Go and sin no more.  :D

now we have a nomination that was obviously made because of race.

Wait…a choice made obviously b/c of race???

We HAVE made progress!  TrollBoyz didn’t mention the fact that “Maria” fails to possess a penis!

Roberts was made for race and gender.  Alito was made for race and gender.  Sotomayor has more experience as a federal judge than the two of them put together and then some.

The SCOTUS is grossly skewed in favor of men and white men in particular.  To get things into a more properly just manner, we need to stop promoting white men over their more qualified sisters.

“Go and sin no more…”

That’s the tricky big, Magis.

See!  See what I mean?  I meant to type “tricky bit”.

Shouldn’t you be brushing your tooth or fornicating with a farm animal there, Cletus?  Isn’t their some Klan meeting you could be at right now?

He’s too dumb to do all three at once.

Srsly, the guy has a problem with affirmative action ... and probably thinks that more than half of the voters in an election with pretty much the largest turn out in history voting for a black man with a funny name is “affirmative action” and not, you know, winning in a fair fight?

See!  See what I mean?  I meant to type “tricky bit”.

Hooom.  Hmmmm.  Very well then, you are hereby granted eleventy-seven jillion plenary indulgences.

Go and <strike>sin no more</strike> do whatever….

It’s pretty simple, people hate Sotomayor because she represents a break from the almost wholly uninterrupted history of racist and sexist appointments to the Supreme Court in favor of basing appointments on actual judicial ability. The claims of such people that the opposite of this is true should be treated as the plainfaced bullshit that it is.

...fornicating with a farm animal there, Cletus?

Honest, officer, I was jes’ helpin’ the little fella through the fence!

Thanks, Magis!  (Goes off to try each and every Deadly Sin.)

What adversities has Chief Justice Roberts ever overcome? Or W. Bush, or Gore?

Seeker:

“When confronted with two evils, I generally choose the one I’ve never tried before.”
    –Mae West

Have fun but don’t work too hard!  Put sloth on the list at least twice.

-finis

What adversities has Chief Justice Roberts ever overcome? Or W. Bush, or Gore?

Well, Al Gore overcame the adversity of having the presidency stolen from him to win the Nobel Prize, but I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about.

And yes. Roberts and Alito were chosen because of their race and gender; Alito may have been chosen because of his religion, too. Thomas was clearly chosen because of his race, as he is not otherwise qualified. Sotomayor should have been on the short list for a SC justice *years* ago if she is as qualified as she apparently is; the fact that it took a black Democratic president to notice such a highly qualified candidate suggests that it is not the black Democratic president who puts race before ability.

Oh, but I forgot, white men don’t *have* a race or gender, do they?

Well, Bush did receive some criticism for having been in charge of trading away Sammy Sosa.  I suppose that might qualify as an adversity.

If she was nominated instead as a law clerk for Scalia

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are her skills really up to the task? Can she make a good cup of coffee? Might she forget Scalia takes cream and no sugar? How is she at picking up the drycleaning?

Anecdotal evidence only, from my first girlfriend’s fiance. If she wasn’t arrogant and kinda pissy, a lousy basketball player and imbued with the belief that Scalia was the coolest thing since sliced white bread, then no, not qualified.

Sotomayor should have been on the short list for a SC justice *years* ago if she is as qualified as she apparently is; the fact that it took a black Democratic president to notice such a highly qualified candidate suggests that it is not the black Democratic president who puts race before ability.

Believe it or not, her original appointment to the appeals court back in 1998 was anonymously blocked by Republicans because, “Basically, we think that putting her on the appeals court puts her in the batter’s box to be nominated to the Supreme Court.’‘

They’ve been blocking her appointment to the Supreme Court for over a decade now, which helps explain some of the hysteria.  But you’d think 10 years would be a long enough time to come up with an argument other than, “But she’s a chick!”

Well, Bush did receive some criticism for having been in charge of trading away Sammy Sosa.  I suppose that might qualify as an adversity.

kaninchen on 05/29 at 02:14 PM

And here I was thinking of adversity as those things that happened to prevent you from attaining life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that were outside your control.

“And here I was thinking of adversity as those things that happened to prevent you from attaining life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that were outside your control.”

That’s way too limited.  What about the kind of adversity that Little Lord Bush faced when he couldn’t get the flavor of ice cream he wanted, or when he didn’t get to ride on the pony he wanted to ride, or when he couldn’t make his presidency more successful than his father’s?

You liberals go on and on about ordinary people’s difficult lives, but you don’t appreciate just how hard it is to be a blue-blooded scion of wealth and privilege…

If any of these were reversed, the howling would be deafening so let’s cut the crap here and call it what it is…..“White Disadvantage”.

Even after Souter is gone, the Supreme court will still be 78% white.  66% will be both white and male.  Aww, those poor little babies!.  White people are just so disadvantaged when the President picks a Supreme Court judge who is completely qualified but isn’t white.  If you want to cry about white disadvantage, do some minor research.  Wouldn’t it be great if there were some way to easily access endless information from the comfort of your very own computer?  People might take you more seriously if you prove that you’re not a complete moron by displaying a knowledge of basic facts.

<iYes, clearly a woman who graduated summa cum laude, won an undergraduate leadership award that’s only given out twice a year, was an editor of the Yale Law Review in law school, and has been a federal judge for 17 years is completely unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.</i>

I love Sotomayor’s story. It’s the American dream and demonstrates, just as Obama’s story demonstrates, that the American dream is alive and well for anyone of any color that wishes to persue it. I also think she has plenty of experience.

What I don’t like about Sotomayor is her inability to apply the law without regard to race, ethnicity, etc. The statements that have surfaced about how she could make better decisions because of her race/ethnicity/gender, etc. are troubling.

If any citizen makes statements like this in a jury selection, they would be disqualified. Why is it OK for the highest judicial appointment? And while I believe the Democrats have the power to confirm her, it’s still important to demonstrate the kind of justice Obama is picking and why. And the statement on film about how she believes that the appeals court is where policy is made is also troubling.  A Supreme Court Justice’s job is one of determining the constitutionality of laws promulgated by the legislature, not to “make policy”.

I understand that you all want to “make history”. Well, great. I do too, but not at the expense of all other considerations. I’m really worried that she’s a poor choice, regardless of her experience.

Even after Souter is gone, the Supreme court will still be 78% white.

White people account for about 80% of the population of the US. So, if you’re looking for parity, how’s this a problem?

“White people account for about 80% of the population of the US. So, if you’re looking for parity, how’s this a problem?”

Fail.

As of 2006, if Hispanics/Latinos are considered White: 74% or 221.3 million

If Hispanics/Latinos are considered a separate ethnicity: 66% or 198.1 million

And since more than 50% of Americans are female — well, there you go…

Boyz, the 80% number is not sustainable due to the startling gap in race categorization re Hispanics.  From the CIA factbook:

white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate)
note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic

What I don’t like about Sotomayor is her inability to apply the law without regard to race, ethnicity, etc.

And yet, it’s just fine when white people in power are unable to apply the law without regard to race, ethnicity, etc.  If you want people to take you seriously, don’t be a blatant hypcrite.

Shorter Boyz in the White House:
“I want a judge who will make decisions that benefit white people over everyone else.”

Wow, Boyz, that was a quick shift from White-Power race-baiting to empty concern trolling.

So, Mr. Stormfront, how does it feel to have an African-American (or “mulatto,” which I believe is your preferred term) as President of the U.S.?

What I don’t like about Sotomayor is her inability to apply the law without regard to race, ethnicity, etc. The statements that have surfaced about how she could make better decisions because of her race/ethnicity/gender, etc. are troubling.

I’m assuming that you are referring to the passage from the speech she gave at Berkeley some years ago, where she said that she hopes that a wise old latina lady will make better decisions than a wise old white man.  Here’s a little lesson in reading comprehension.  This is not an admission of ethnic favoritism.  She is not saying that she, as a wise latina, will make better decisions because she will favor other people of her demographic background (while ruling against “white people”).  Her point is that her life experience will likely lead her to recognize or understand aspects of a situation that someone from a more privileged (white male) perspective might miss.  It should be crystal clear that this is in no way equivalent to her granting some sort of automatic pass for every individual of latin american background that appears before her in court.  Indeed, Alito made a very similar statement about the impact of his own underprivileged, immigrant background on his rulings — and no one complained then because there is no reason to.  This isn’t favoritism, privileging one group while oppressing another; it’s justice.  Don’t we want our justice system to have the fullest possible understanding of the matter at hand?  Moreover, this is why we have nine people on the supreme court, instead of one or two really smart justices who will deduce the one and only true ruling.  Her perspective will complement the perspectives of other justices, and their perspectives and insights will complement hers.   

Is this really such a bad thing?

“Is this really such a bad thing?”

...for Boyz and his philosophical ilk: Yes…

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/11/us/census-shows-profound-change-in-racial-makeup-of-the-nation.html

Whites of European or Middle Eastern backgrounds make up slightly less than 76 percent of the resident population of 248.7 million people.

Yep, you’re right! I was off by about 4%. However, my statement stands.

On the other hand, I’m not the one looking for parity, you are. I look for qualifications and lack of bias. I really don’t care what color a justice is. I just want to know that when I come before them, they will fairly apply the law as intended by the legislature and by stare decisis and not “make policy”.

Is that too much to ask?

Shorter Boyz in the White House: “I want a judge who will make decisions that benefit white people over everyone else.”

One of Pandagon’s biggest problems is the hateful and stupid commenters like catgirl who don’t really care about the issues, but just want to hate on someone. If she really cared, she would ask and not make stuff up.

It’s the mark of a small person. Good luck to catgirl

Boyz, no one is looking for lack of bias. Republicans want judges that are biased in favor of presidential power and the prerogatives of employers to discriminate against employees.

Liberals want judges with a record of support for equal rights, the prerogatives of individuals, and transparency in government. It’s my understanding that the constitution and our form of government are more in line with the liberal view than the conservative Republican view.

If you claim that you want a judge with a “lack of bias,” then, by definition, you have to be against judges like Alito, Thomas, and Roberts. I don’t see anyone complaining about Sotomayor’s supposed “biases” to be those who complained about Robert’s “biases.”

There are certain legal and philosophical temperaments to be expected in judges. I voted for Obama because I wanted him to appoint judges of that temperament that I support, rather than McCain, who would support another kind.

All this braying about how people “want a judge who isn’t biased” is a bunch of disingenuous preening.

“I look for qualifications and lack of bias. I really don’t care what color a justice is.”

Boyz as he thinks of himself: “I don’t see color.  People tell me I’m white, and I believe them, but I really don’t see it.”

Dude, you’re no Stephan Colbert…

What I don’t like about Sotomayor is her inability to apply the law without regard to race, ethnicity, etc.

Please demonstrate a single case where she has done that.  In fact, the major criticism of her that I’ve seen from actual judges and lawyers—as opposed to people who’ve read a single phrase out of context in a long speech—is that she’s too prone to sticking with the letter of the law and not taking other factors into consideration.

If she has this alleged bias, please show evidence of it other than a single out-of-context phrase that even Rod Dreher is embarrassed at having been taken in by.  Longtime Republican strategist Peggy Noonan is trying to warn you that this is a loser.  Sen. John Cornyn, one of the most conservative Senators, is telling Rush and Newt to knock it off before they blow everything.

But, please, keep digging.  Republicans are down to 21% of the voting public, and I bet the brilliant stratagem of demonizing a brilliant jurist based on her gender and ethnicity is going to be a huge winner for you guys.  I’m guessing you’ll be down to 15% by the time the confirmation is through.

Boyz as he thinks of himself: “I don’t see color.  People tell me I’m white, and I believe them, but I really don’t see it.”

Hard to see anything but white when you cut your sheet’s eyeholes too small.

BTW, linking to a NY Times article from 1991 about demographics in the US isn’t very bright.  The demographic changes over the last 18 years (nearly a whole generation) make its information just a little bit out of date…

What was funnier, MikeEss, was that he linked to an article talking about people of European or Middle Eastern background.  Yeah, I’d love to see his reaction of Obama had appointed somebody Islamic.

Boyz, why are you showing Census statistics from 20 years ago to claim that whites are 80% of the population?

Seriously, that’s embarrassing.  You couldn’t even be bothered to find the 2001 statistics?  I know you’ll get all excited when you see a 79% in one of the columns near white, but that means that 79% of people who identify as white are not also Latino, not that 79% of the population is white.

What I don’t like about Alito is his inability to apply the law without regard to race, ethnicity, etc. The statements that have surfaced about how his immigrant ancestors influence his decision making in immigration law cases, etc. are troubling.

If any citizen makes statements like this in a jury selection, they would be disqualified. Why is it OK for the highest judicial appointment? And while I believe the Republicans confirmed him, it was still important to demonstrate the kind of justice Bush picked and why. ..

Fixed that for you, Boyz.  As for the rest of your post:

“Even after Souter is gone, the Supreme court will still be 78% white.

White people account for about 80% of the population of the US. So, if you’re looking for parity, how’s this a problem?”

Well, actually, the U.S. is only about 74% caucasian.  Subtract the Hispanic whites and it’s more like 66%.
And with women in the population majority, we’ve got quite a way to go to gender equality.

OK, hit refresh before answering post.

Actually, to be fair, Alito is remarkably race-, gender- and class neutral in his decisions: if you’re in conflict with the government in any way, manner shape or form, or if you are up against a corporate entity, then you are always wrong.  It matters not a jot to Samuel whether you are a man or woman, black or white, or anything else for that matter.  You’re.  Just.  Wrong.

What I don’t like about Sotomayor is her inability to apply the law without regard to race, ethnicity, etc.

Well, you didn’t answer my last question (a sure sign of purile trollishness) but, I’ll let you try again.  Can you point to one, count ‘em one, of her decisions to support this statement.

STILL awaiting enlightenment.

<blockquote>What I don’t like about Sotomayor is her inability to apply the law without regard to race, ethnicity, etc. The statements that have surfaced about how she could make better decisions because of her race/ethnicity/gender, etc. are troubling. </blockquoet>

Statement, singular, that in context does not mean what you imply it means.  Not in a decision either, mind you, so you still need to back up that first sentence.

and please let me know how upset you are about Alito, who also referenced his Italian heritage and immigrant ancestors during his confirmation hearings.  That pisses you off, right?  Because it’s just mentioning that your heritage affects your judgment that offends you, not what that heritage is.

Some people don’t think Italians are white, you know.  Of course, if you want to be racially pure WASP, you’re definitely going to be a minority.

White people account for about 80%

Not using the Aryan definition. Most Italian Americans would not meet that specification, nor those from Eastern Europe. Mediterraneans and Slavs were not considered members of the Master Race. An Italian, whose parents immigrated from Puglia, with dark curly hair, big lips and a wide flat nose, told me he was Caucasian.

What I don’t like about Sotomayor is her inability to apply the law without regard to race, ethnicity, etc. The statements that have surfaced about how she could make better decisions because of her race/ethnicity/gender, etc. are troubling.

Can we please lay this right-wing meme to rest?  I’m sorry that you don’t like the fact that legislatures craft laws that have variable effects on different groups (often intentionally) and that different groups have a variable interactions with the legal system.  It’s all nice to say “equal justice under the law” but this assumes that our experience with the legal system is equal, and this is demonstrably untrue.  Even though this is not what Sotomayor was saying, I still think it is a valid approach to assessing whether or not a law is being applied appropriately and her background may give her insight into potentially serious problems with a given law or its application by authorities that a white man would never see.  No single person can see all sides of an issue, especially if they willfully shut their eyes to alternative perspectives.

What’s really funny about the particular line of bullshit that Boyz is peddling is that legal experts who have actually, you know, read her fucking opinions describe her as a cautious, technically adept, very precedent-respecting judge. But of course, reality never stops conservatives from simply lying their asses off. Not even when something like Alito’s statement makes their hypocrisy plain for all to see.

So, Mr. Stormfront, how does it feel to have an African-American (or “mulatto,” which I believe is your preferred term) as President of the U.S.?

True story… currently on POLITICO, there’s in interview with Charlie Payne, President Obama’s maternal great-uncle who served in WWII and helped to liberate the Nazi concentration camp Buchenwald in Germany, which the president will be visiting next week.

Uncle Charlie’s picture is at the top of the article - an 80-something year old white guy (he was the cute little old smiling man on stage beaming with pride for his nephew after Obama gave his DNC acceptance speech at Invesco Field last August).

In the comments section:

His uncle? Obamer is black. How is a white man his uncle?

Silly me, here I was thinking that it had been 40+ years since Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial marriage.

“But of course, reality never stops conservatives from simply lying their asses off.”

Remember, these are the same idiots who have been claiming for the last year that Obama was such a radical leftist we’d all be forced to worship Karl Marx by now.  Somebody needs to pull the whole Republican party aside and send them on a little recuperative trip to Happy Meadows where they can be leveled out with some Prozac and some rest (and end their toxic addiction to Rush, Hannity, and Gingrich)...

Honest question on the odd ways in which data is aggregated regarding racial demographics in the United States in regard to Hispanics…

I often hear the term “Hispanic white”, but I’m confused about who exactly that would apply to.  Is the actress Cameron Diaz someone who would be considered a “Hispanic white”?  I mean she’s as lily-white as they come, and most people would just call her a white woman, but would she officially be classified as a “Hispanic white” as she does have a Cuban background?

“But, since no one is going to be free of bias, the best we can do is get a whole range of them.”

Antigone on 05/29 at 06:00 PM

Thanks, Antigone. That is one of the clearest, most succinct reasons for diversity as a goal that I’ve heard.

“His uncle? Obamer is black. How is a white man his uncle?”

I guess my niece must not really be my niece and my nephew’s not really my nephew.  After all, if you look at them, you can see that they’re black but I’m white, and everyone knows that black people and white people can’t interbreed.

Seriously, didn’t that notion go out in, like, the 1600s?

“Seriously, didn’t that notion go out in, like, the 1600s?”

...for some people the 1600’s haven’t ended yet…

Of those cases Sotomayor decided that were granted cirtiori by the Supreme Court, most of them were overturned.

Say it ain’t so

That’s why this nominee really doesn’t need to be there. If she can’t get it right most of the time on these issues, why would anyone wish to elevate her to the Supreme Court on merit? While you would like to make any opposition to your agenda about race, it simply isn’t true.

The reason why this is important is the Supreme Court decides constitutionality. While Sotomayor may have been a better appellet judge, she is now rising to her level of incompetency as the Peter Priniciple predicts.

I understand that the political muscle is there to confirm her. It doesn’t change what she is.

@DTG in STL

“I often hear the term “Hispanic white”, but I’m confused about who exactly that would apply to. “

Hispanic is the ethnicity, white is the racial identification.  I identify as Latina, and my racial makeup looks Caucasian. Hispanics/Latinos are ethnically Hispanic and also any ‘color’ on the racial spectrum.

“Of those cases Sotomayor decided that were granted cirtiori by the Supreme Court, most of them were overturned.
Say it ain’t so”

OMFG!  Sotomayor had five rulings, out of 380, appealed to SCOTUS.  Three were overturned, two were upheld.  So she has A 60% RATE OF HER RULINGS BEING OVERTURNED!!!11!

Samuel Alito had two rulings appealed to SCOTUS, and both were overturned.  So by your idiotic method, Alito had 100% OF HIS RULINGS OVERTURNED!!!

“That’s why this nominee really doesn’t need to be there. If she can’t get it right most of the time on these issues, why would anyone wish to elevate her to the Supreme Court on merit?”

That’s some really awesome lunacy.  Do you practice, or does it just come naturally?  Five appeals out of 380 is not a majority here on planet Earth…

“While you would like to make any opposition to your agenda about race, it simply isn’t true.”

Okay, so all that spouting off by Maximum Leader Limbaugh and the rest of the sycophantic Republican noise machine didn’t really happen?  Any minute now he’s going to call her a Spic Bitch and then really lose it…

“The reason why this is important is the Supreme Court decides constitutionality. While Sotomayor may have been a better appellet judge, she is now rising to her level of incompetency as the Peter Priniciple predicts.”

This is why pop-psy needs to be used sparingly.  Just because you have a hammer in your hand, that doen’t make every object you encounter a nail. 

Sotomayor is more qualified than anyone appointed in decades.  You want to hate her because she won’t be as nuts as Scalia, fine.  Go for it.  But don’t try to pass it off as some kind of high-minded and principled stand…

“I understand that the political muscle is there to confirm her. It doesn’t change what she is.”

...says the guy who no doubt never even noticed the “political muscle” that was used with Roberts and Alito…

So now we’re shifting goalposts, are we Boyz?  First, was that her appointment was obviously a case of affirmative action. Now you admit she has merit as a candidate, but have decided that she just cannot judge cases on their constitutional merit.

But it appears your new “concern” isn’t as revealing as you think.

From Judgeopedia:

The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in six instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation. In one case, the Supreme Court vacated a judgment made Judge Sotomayor and remanded the case back to the Second Circuit in which the Second Circuit issued a reversal on its original ruling.

From SCOTUS blog:

Though the Supreme Court twice reversed Judge Sotomayor’s reasoning by wide margins, both involved the interpretation of isolated statutory provisions, rather than larger jurisprudential questions.

And from Power Line:

Much is being made, in some circles, of the fact that 60 percent of the majority decisions written by Judge Sonia Sotomayor during her tenure on the Second Circuit, on which appeals have been heard by the Supreme Court, have been reversed. On its face, this sounds awful; no judge should be reversed anywhere near 60 percent of the time.

However, the statistic appears to be meaningless. It relates only to Sotomayor’s decisions as to which a petition for a writ of certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court—a total of only five. (The overwhelming majority of such petitions are denied.) Of the five cases in which the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, it reversed three. Not only is this a ridiculously small sample, the overall rate of reversal of cases in which the Supreme Court grants cert appears to be around 70 percent. This shouldn’t be too surprising, as it requires four votes on the court to grant a writ of certiorari, and five to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision.

So, unless there is more to the story, conservatives should stop citing the 60 percent figure as evidence of any lack of competence on Sotomayor’s part.

I await your next argument.

BTW, the Google is your friend. Maybe you should try it sometime.

Of those cases Sotomayor decided that were granted cirtiori by the Supreme Court, most of them were overturned.

Say it ain’t so

That’s why this nominee really doesn’t need to be there. If she can’t get it right most of the time on these issues, why would anyone wish to elevate her to the Supreme Court on merit? ...
Boyz in the White House on 05/29 at 04:20 PM

The particular Justices making up the majorities that overturned Sotomayor’s decisions are the same ones (or their replacements) who “elevated” GW Bush to the Presidency, in one of the most spectacularly unjudicial acts of judicial activism on record.

So no, I don’t take the judgments of Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Rehnquist or O’Connor when they were on the bench or their replacements Roberts and Alito (put there by none other than the same jerk whom they helped raise way past his Peter Principle ceiling to the point where he was also communing with Paul and Mary) very seriously.

I haven’t worked my way through the links of Sotomayor’s record yet, but in the cases that got appealed to SCOTUS, the miscarriage of justice obviously happened in the highest court, every time.

She gets it right. That’s why I want to see her on the highest Court, which often doesn’t.

I await your next argument.

And I’m sure he has one. It will be a completely different line of argument about a completely different topic. When he gets schooled on one thing, he just moves on to the next.

And I’m sure he has one. It will be a completely different line of argument about a completely different topic. When he gets schooled on one thing, he just moves on to the next.

And when he comes back tomorrow, he’s going to start all over again with “I’m as liberal as the next white man, but ...” and make us walk through the whole thing all over again, step by step.  And when people get exasperated with his stupidity and start calling him names since every one of us has explained the same point to him at least three times, with supporting evidence, that will mean that he’s won.

I would like to build a time machine and send many of the wingnuts back in time to an America when being Irish, Jewish, or Italian and ascending in society earned just such fulminations from the elite. Late nineteenth, early twentieth centuries, up through the 1960s in some circles. The Irish, Italians, and Jews were hardly viewed as “white,” since WASPS—White Anglo-Saxon Protestants—defined “white.”

They’ve quite forgotten, haven’t they?

Of those cases Sotomayor decided that were granted cirtiori by the Supreme Court, most of them were overturned.

Say it ain’t so.

Five of Judge Sotomayor’s rullings have been granted cert by SCOTUS, and three of them have been overturned.  One more is currently pending before the high court.

So I guess we can say that she’s batting .400 in terms of her decisions that have been reviewed by SCOTUS.

Prior to joing SCOTUS, Judge Samuel Alito had two of his ruling granted certiori by SCOTUS.  Guess how many of those were upheld?

ZERO.  ZILCH.  ZIP. NADA.  Both were overturned by the Supreme Court.

So if Sotomayor should be turned down because 60% of her rulings have been overturned by SCOTUS, then when should we do about Justice Alito, who was batting .000 in having his Circuit Court rulings upheld by SCOTUS?

Also—the supreme court routinely overturns about 70 to 75 percent of the appelate cases it hears. According to Newsweek:

In any case, 60 percent of the cases the Supreme Court has reviewed is not a particularly high number. In any given term, the Supreme Court normally reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears. During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term.

Here’s the link to that: http://www.newsweek.com/id/199955

So Sotomayor is actually above the curve.  Not that this is a good metric.  Alito, for instance, had 100% of his decisions (2 of 2) overturned by the Supreme Court.

Ha! That teaches me to respond before reading the rest of the thread…  Sorry to repeat your points, history_mom, DTG et al.

I wouldn’t worry olivetti… TrollBoyz probably still won’t get it after the repeats, so one more attempt can’t hurt…

Boyz in the White House on 05/29 at 07:20 PM

Disingenuous stupid people are funny.

It’s worth remembering too that Thomas, Scalia and Roberts were basically fast-tracked to SCOTUS via the standard route of a few years on the DC Circuit: the three combined had less experience on the federal appeals court (eight years) than Sotomayor (nearly eleven years) and no district court experience whatsoever.

un-useful ethnicity

Wow.  Don’t often see the ‘non-white people have it easier than white people’ put so baldly.

My fondest hope about Derbyshite is that he’ll be confronted by a rampaging gunman someday and decide to “rush” him, the way he sneered at the Virginia Tech victims for not doing.