Tom Tancredo calls Sonia Sotomayor a racist
By John Amato Tuesday May 26, 2009 5:59pm
The attacks on Sonia Sotomayor are coming in like a tidal wave by the extreme right, but former Rep. Tom Tancredo, one of the harshest critics of the Latino community ever to run for president, actually called her a racist. This is the man who boycotted the Univision debate and then attacked their entire audience.
On The Ed Show today, Mike Allen of The Politico was pretty on point saying that she's not anyone that the right could attack and wouldn't investigate her supposed racism, but Tancredo uses the already debunked and discredited talking point about Latino lady judges being smarter than the Tancredo- looking judges of the world.
(rough transcript)
Tancredo: Unfortunately for her and fortunately for us there are plenty of things that we've even talked about her already. I'm telling you, she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context...
---
Tancredo: You can still be a racist and have all those things in your background. You can be a racist and have all that stuff in your background.Ed: How aggressive do you want the Republicans to be on the judiciary committee?
Tancredo: I think there's plenty of stuff that they can use and should. They should do to her what the Democrats did to Bork.
Ed: Like what?
Tancredo: I would continually bring up this quote of hers, I'd like her to explain that. It is incredible to me. There is no one else I can think of who could possibly have said the kind of things she said, If they are reported accurately about the benefits of being a brown women as opposed to a white man and interpreting the law and nobody can look at that and say that was not a racist, sexist statement that would disqualify anybody else...She is a Hispanic woman and we can't say anything like this..
His form of racism is an affront to all decency. As I've said before, I do not speak Italian because of the racism my grandparents endured when they came to America. He's Italian and he should be ashamed of himself. Why is this man on TV talking about race in America? What does he have to add? Here's one of Tancredo's racist campaign ads.
Tancredo's racism is such that he's the darling of the Malkin wing of the GOP. He's a man who even called Miami a "Third World country.”
I'm not kidding. And let's not forget his "bombing Mecca," statements either.
This isn't the pot calling the kettle black. It's the pot calling the tablecloth black.
Login or Register to post comments.
this is easy. i call tancredo an idiot.
Because he is, indeed, "So stupid!"
How about Tan-Crackpot, the Wop?
See how he likes it.
Tommy Tanned-Cretin
on a prior post. Saw the WASP wannabee Tancredo use the race card too, like Rush Bimbo!
i was MORE upset that ed didn't shut him up and smack him down...
W E A K .
ed really needs to work on that, and better follow ups...
at the least, after an idiotic comment by a fright winger, and the time is up, don't just say "all right then...", 'cause that sounds like an agreement...
just sayin'...
his mike as in O'Reilly! Rather than give him an audience!
i wouldn't want that...
but a good strong loud push back is definitely called for...
What Ed should have done is to point out the multitude of racist statements, opinions, and policies that this creep Tancredo got away with during his reign of fun and games.
Ed is a light weight... never been too impressed with his stances or oratory/debating capabilities to be honest. How can you let a racist creep like Tancredo get away with calling a hispanic woman judge a "racist?" WTF? Honestly, there must be somewhere an even bigger example of hypocrisy.... but I just can't think of one right now.
...that career bigot Tancredo. Conservatives and their racism/hypocrisy are truly beyond belief.
He misses golden opportunities EVERY DAY. I stopped watching him. He lets these clowns spew out bullshit day after day. Either he is hugely misinformed or just simply allowing it.
He should be prepared point-by-point to counter what they say, yet he never does. EVER.
Last I saw him he had two goopers on, one progressive and him, a eunuch when it comes to knowledge. The goopers rolled over him with lies - and the progressive could barely get a word in edgewise.
Ed was a huge mistake for MSNBC, unless they want Scarborough lite, with Ed, instead of being the one to counter, he just sits there.
Useless.
-- is WTF cognitive dissonance. On his radio program he never lets any right-wing talking point pass by unassaulted. He never tempers his outrage yet remains coherent. Indeed, he gains coherence in his outrage. Maybe he's careful around the MSNBC honchos. Maybe he's uncomfortable with the television format. Whatever it is, he projects nutered-dumb-downness and is ineffectual. On his radio show he'd have torn Tancredo to shreds without a thought and not been worried about what to do to appease the msm heads. Disappointing.
He's a paranoid, hateful, screwed up little man. I thought his 15 minutes were over, it's disgusting to see his ugly head pop up again.
--are has-beens/never weres. When ya ain't got nuthin' in your Party it's painfully obvious even to your party. At night. Alone. For one nanosecond.
Tancredo: You can still be a racist and have all those things in your background. You can be a racist and have all that stuff in your background.
Ed: How aggressive do you want the Republicans to be on the judiciary committee?
what the hell kind of question/response is THAT???
it's like he's not even listening...
he must be taking lessons from Tweety.
a swing and a miss.
The hatemongers are frothing at the mouth over this, and can only further damage themselves.
Mike Allen "No". The only thing he said and the only thing he needed to say after that McCarthyesque smear by the bigot racist himself. A simple no with no expanding was all Tancredo's comment warranted. A perfect response.
Listening to NPR after the announcement I heard several Right Wing Pundits making veiled refernces to Sotomayor being racist.
As you know, no one is as oppressed in Republi-Land as White men.
well-to-do older white guys.
... not being able to oppress other people is a sign of being oppressed. Or something like that.
was a precise observation.
Someone in the crowd today on the news hoping for Prop 8 held up a sign that said "Protect Religious Freedom"
Nothing I've heard so far from Sotomayor suggests to me that she has a problem with white people. What I do hear from her makes a lot of sense to me as a fellow Latina. Women of color *do* have experiences that white men can't completely appreciate or understand, and our perspectives are just as valid as theirs.
Of course, over-the-hill white Republican men seem to think that only theirs should ever count. Which is why our Supreme Court, which makes important decisions about the lives of women everyday, has only one woman currently (fingers crossed for another).
But I can remember forty years ago (when I take my medicine) and the conservatives claimed that they were the "Silent Majority" and they were being persecuted by the left.
This is a very tired old game.
a long time now. I guess I should've said instead that it's the newest meme they've pulled out of their bag of old tricks! :)
Thanks so little for the reminder Tom that you are a flaming hypocrite and serial liar. In other words, a fine and upstanding member of the old white men's party that likes to pretend it is so powerful and relevant---to racists, victims, and professional haters.
With goons like you spewing your filth, your party is doomed to extinction---and nobody will miss you.
Wasn't this nut voted out of office?
No. He did not run for re-election. I am ashamed that I am from the same state (Colorado) as this idiot. As a matter of fact, he sponsored the 8yr old baseball team I played on as a kid. My parents taught me to dislike him back then. Thankfully I was able to move to a new team the next year.
is another really good indicator of just how decrepid and lost the Republican Party has become in the face of America's changing values and cultural landscape.
My answer to all of them is that I PRAY that Obama will be able to guarantee that we NEVER AGAIN have a Supreme Court that would prevent votes from being counted in a presidential election so that their "favored" candidate would be proclaimed the winner AGAINST the will of the majority.
Projection is one of the 3 main MOs of the right in the country. Deflection of responsibility and lying being the other two.
Freud would have a field day with these assholes...
I mean Fuck you Tancreepo!
Sonia Sotomayor's stance on the Ricci v. DeStefano case is alone enough to make me think she should undergo strict confirmation and be vetted thoroughly.
It seems that trying to paint a hispanic female as a "racist" is not getting the traction you feeble little minds were hoping for, eh?
LOL...
Why is that Brad? Do you not think a hispanic can be a racist?
... doesn't necessarily mean everybody else has to be. Not especially a female minority who had to fight tooth and nail for everything she has achieved.
In any case, I assume red herrings arguments are all the rage at cesspools like freerepublic. Maybe you took the wrong turn on the internets?
I may have opinionated views on racial issues Mr. Durden, is it? I don't feel like I am racist I am half mexican with two black kids and I know that alone does not prove that I am not. I try not to pass judgment on others and try to be tolerant of others race, religions and culture. But just as me being half her being a "latina " does not mean she is not. Where are your facts showing that she has a history of impartial rulings. What makes you think I would be racist anyway?
I mean, if you are going to be making sh*t up in a desperate attempt to add validity to your feeble point, at least go big dude...
LOL.
What did I make up?
so this is the part where you try to play coy.
Yawn... come on, can we get less predictable trolls. Pleeeeeease.
Yawn... come on, can we get less predictable trolls.
No.
I think the histroy of her positions and rulings on racial issues will gain their own traction.
If that is the case, by all means... make a concise post with facts. Not just talking points.
I'm sure that her history is prologue and that in reality, she will gain her own traction---by proving that she is a far better quality jurist than any of the imbecilic and rigid ideologues that Bushco appointed---who won't be remembered for anything redemptive.
I guess time will tell. Because it will sure as hell going to be out in the open. What quality is it that makes her such a grand pick in your book? That she is a woman and a minority. In other words a vote machine for Obama. A more obivious ploy to gain favor have I never seen don't even act like her jurist quality was a deciding factor.
But no, Robby, I have looked at some of her work and she has a objective and open minded perspective that rigid and backward thinking ideologues that hold us back like Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Roberts would do well to adopt.
In other words, she is a very competent jurist who favors justice over promoting an ideology. Personally, I don't care if she is a minority or woman though that's a plus--just being a competent and impartial justice is sufficient.
The kind of justice that withdraw an exam for firefighters because no African-Americans who took the test made the cut for promotion. I mean the white firefighters took the same test and passed but were failed to be up for promotion because black firefighters could not hack it. That's not justice.
If you check your facts, Sotomayor was sitting on the Second Court of Appeals panel in the Ricci v. DeStefano case. The panel agreed with the lower courts however they also recommended that it be reviewed by the Supreme Court, which agreed to the review. Unless, of course, you believe in conspiracy theories. Then never mind.
A single case, in which she was not part of the original ruling. But rather she sat in a 3 panel judge reviewing the case for the appeals process...
Karen Torre, who argued for the firefighters before the appeals panel, said Sotomayor dominated the questioning. "It seemed to me and to the clients, all of whom were present...that Judge Sotomayor held strong favorable views of New Haven's decision."
and the judges who ruled for the firefighters held strong unfavorable views of New Haven's decision. Whats your point?
My point was that it is an indicator of where Judge Sotomayor's interests lie when it comes to racial issues and raises doubt about wither or not she will impartial in rulings especially when race is at issue.
firefighter who was fighting the New Haven's decision?
So a latino judge is racist because she ruled AGAINST the only latino in the case?
Do you even know the details of the case?
Crickets.................
You are trying to say that the opinion of the lawyer representing her clients, should be the only qualified one because a judge ruled against her clients' interests?
Are you that monumentally stupid, did you even read what you wrote. Actually, scratch that, did you even comprehend what you just wrote?
Or are you just going to post whatever talking points you are being fed. Because it is clear you are not even comprehending them.
According to you, next time there is a trial for murder... the fact that the defense attorney says his or her client did not do it should be enough. Right?
nice spin but thats not what I said try the jedi mind trick on your so called trolls
are jedi mind tricks. That explains a lot about your stupidity.
Are you aware that one of the ‘white’ plaintiff’s in this case is Hispanic, or do you just not click on any links??
Sure that's justice---for white people. And that's why she decided to help level the playing field for minorities by demanding a fairer standard in this "test". Sorry you feel that's so inequitable, but this isn't 1860 anymore.
What do you mean by fairer standard? What was so unfair about the first test in your opnion? Can you support the fact that the stanard test that everyone had to take was baised in favor of the white firemen? I would love for you to explain how.
Courts have consistently ruled times in the past that tests used in hiring and promotions MUST be truly job-related in order to be legal. Otherwise, the test must be thrown out, regardless of the results of the test. In Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor upheld that precedent.
So, which do you think is more important when promoting a firefighter - demonstrated job performance, or a multiple-choice test? Which do you think is more important when making someone a supervisor - an evaluation of the leadership skills someone has demonstrated, or some test questions?
And most importantly, if one of the white male judges that sat on the review panel had been nominated to SCOTUS, would you still be screaming "racist"? No? It's the same decision, isn't it?
in this link http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=read...
where your questions above came from it states that Frank Ricci is a 34-year-old "truckie"—he throws ladders, breaks windows, and cuts holes for New Haven's Truck 4. His uncle and both his brothers are firefighters. He studied fire science at college. He has dozens of videos about firefighting tagged on a Web site he set up to recruit for the department. He is also dyslexic, which means that his high score on the promotion test was especially hard-won. Ricci and 19 other firefighters sued New Haven, alleging reverse discrimination, in light of Title VII and also the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law. They said that New Haven shouldn't have thrown out the test. Also in this link http://adversity.net/newhavenfd/default.htm#0...
you can see that new haven went out of the way to make sure the test was fair.
Another excerpt from the article your questions come from
"The city paid an outside consultant to design the test so that it would be JOB-RELATED. Firefighters studied for months"
So you never do explain in anyway how the test was unfair or baias in favor of the white firemen who are a minority in a city that is over 60% black.
And for the record I never said she was racist
Sotomayo sided with the black firefighters against 17 white AND ONE HISPANIC firemen. Think about that: The Puerto Rican judge ruled against the white AND HISPANIC firefighters. Doesn't that quell the racist charge?
BTW, did you ever think for one millisecond that a test in which NOT A SINGLE BLACK FIREFIGHTER PASSED might be flawed?
6,000 years old, and man and dinosaur peacefully co-existed, ala "The Flinstones"?
That alone is enough for me not to put any stock in what this ignoramus has to say.
that "it" has come to pass.
I cast my vote for Obama last autumn precisly for the reason of preventing another right wing kook from getting on the SC.
I'll have to read up on Sotomayor, but the wingnut reaction would lead me to believe that Obama has done a decent job in this matter.
Now; about habeas corpus and the unPatriot Act.....
.. although, to be honest. Anyone that Obama tries to appoint to the Supreme Court that is not to the right of Mussolini will be fought tooth and nail by the right wingers.
as thats the only way he sees it: he and his ilk are white, and everything else is black. oh and theyre afraid of it too.
how does one deal with this creap without getting angry.
In all of recorded time, has a Republican ever found racism in a conservative? Has it ever concluded that a white conservative man (any of them) is racist?
That is a pretty ignorant statement. Of course conservatives have spoken up against racism publicly.
So I assume you will be our assigned right wing troll for the evening.
Man, the quality of the troll pool is starting to resemble the scraps from the bottom of the barrel. Why don't you be a darling and read up on some of the public statements and opinions by this creep Tancredo, esp. his racist views?
I will give you a cookie if you can even post something not resembling a red herring.
Cheerio...
I see it's this one again.
:P
don't you mean "that one". Thats like "code" right?
You are ignorant.
I would pay a subscription fee for a liberal/progressive blog with a decent troll. You just don't cut it.
only a few minutes before you resorted to name calling this time Mr. Pitt I think that is a new record. Where are all your facts about the supreme court justice pick man or are you nothing but talking points and name calling? I think I have been on this site long enough to stop being called a troll I knew when I came here the first time I would be anchoring here. I don't care about Mr. Tancredo any more than I do Rush. I be enterained to know what you think I have made up and why Sotomayor is such a shining light of racial equality.
I am afraid that what we got here is nothing more than a garden variety concern troll. A bad one at that even...
LOL.
You seem to be "afraid" to justify any of your so-called points. Everyone following this thread can see that you are using calling me a troll to duck backing up your position.
You keep referring to her record and how in time it will show how bad she is, but you don't offer anything to back that up.
You also state that repubs have stood up against racism, and for the record I'm sure some have, yet you don't supply any proof to back up your claim.
you have no standing to whine.
Harry I never whine. I started my post with my opnion that I believed she should undergo strict confirmation and be vetted thoroughly. Then refered to the Ricci v. DeStefano case for my reason.
therefore there is no reason she should be vetted more or less than the last bunch of picks.
Also, regardless of how you started your post, you've ended up whining.
implies a harsher level of vetting. Because it is clear that our dear troll does not understand the outcome and process of the case he keeps referring to over and over.
He is just looking for an excuse to play the vicim. So he can go back to whatever cesspool he comes from to say how "meany" them libs are. Boohooooohooooo.
The outcome resulted in the test being withdrew is that not right?
Did you actually read the case? Did you actually read the test in question? Does anyone have a copy of the test? What does "strict confirmation" mean? Exactly what does that process entail?
Did you? Do you have a reason to believe that the test was unfair to blacks? I would like to know why? No I did not read the test Savannah. I do know everyone took the same test.
But I am not basing my opinions about Judge Sotomayor on it, even though I did read it. And if you do not know what was in the test or even if more than one version was given, then how can you comment on it, much less use it against the Judge?
I am not asking you to base your opinion on it. I would hope that you would make up your own mind. I based my opinion in part on the fact that her stance in the aforementioned case seemed to lack a degree of impartiality that I think we all deserve. It is just my opinion though Savannah nothing more nothing less. Don't you think we deserve a judge that is impartial in racial issues and all others for that matter? Noone has really said why they think the test should be withdrew except that all the blacks failed it so it must be flawed.
Your statement that "her stance...seemed to lack a degree of impartiality that I think we all deserve" is not a fact. It is your opinion, and not one reasoned very well. I am accusing you of basing YOUR opinion on it. I do not want an impartial judge. I want one who is correct. Impartiality is severely overrated.
That is a fair comment. I may have mis spoke when calling it a fact. I should have said that it was my belief. I disagree with your comment about impartilaity though.
Firstly, how do you claim to know that everyone took the same test? Secondly, if you had read the case, and were able to understand it, you would know why the test was withdrawn. It is explained in the decision. Thirdly, if no black people who took the test passed the test, isn't there at least a slight smell of something wrong? Are you making unwarranted assumptions? How do you come to your conclusions? For the third time, I ask you, what does "strict confirmation" mean to you?
You know that you aren't going to get a documented staight answer out of Rubbery who hasn't been out of the rubber room for quite a few years. They only get access to a computer after they are heavily sedated.
I hereby withdrew my question.
bad storms here
Doesn't that happen a lot on Mars?
I don't understand the question. I was just saying that I had to leave my computer because of storms and was not trying to ignore you.
That's your input on the subject Ron? Your arguments in the last few days have consisted of you calling me crazy or insulting me. I envision you holding your hands over your ears and chanting it in a sing song manner. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but at least I try to “cut it” by making reasonable conversation.
this was all reported when this first started. Don't you think this would have been in court long ago if blacks had to take seprate tests?
What? Is that what you think the argument is about? What a maroon! The argument is about...never mind. Pearls before swine, and all that.
you asked me how I knew everyone took the same test right?
haven't told me.
Here is a link to the exam scores. I did not really think your question was serious. I mean of course they all took the same test.
http://adversity.net/newhavenfd/default.htm#0...
Please quote to me where the justices that upheld the decision stated that the test should be withdrawn because it must be unfair to blacks. That line was missing from the copy of the decision that I read.
It was new haven that withdrew the test under pressure and the decision was upheld by the justices. Same basic outcome for the firemen bieng refused promotion.
... if you are going to accuse something of any wrong doing, you have to prove it. It is not their duty to prove their innocence to you.
Obviously you have no clue how the justice system works in this country.
Sotomayor read it, and she deemed it unfair not only based on her opinion but the expert witnesses brought forth by the original trial. Furthermore, basic statistics make it clear that it is very unlikely that every single one of the African Americans who took the test was unable to pass.
So here you are talking crap and you did not even bother to read the test. It takes balls...
You accused me of making things up and never even bothered to say what when asked. What exactly did I accuse anyone of? It is my opinion that the next supreme court justice should undergo strict confirmation. I am sorry you disagree Mr. Pitt. You are the one that resorted to name calling and hateful conversation. It does take grit to comment here if you are not a far left liberal you are right about that.
Again I ask you, exactly what is that? What does it entail. Do you know?
part of the confirmation process involves Committee hearings where the Senate Judiciary Committee holds public hearings into the candidate during which various individuals and groups are given a chance to voice their support or opposition. The nominee then appears before the committee to answer questions. Senators often press nominees for their personal and legal views on a range of hot-button issues like abortion and affirmative action. The questions typically revolve around previous court rulings, such as whether the Miranda warnings, giving criminal suspects the right to remain silent, should be overturned
Who told you that? Is your version just the normal procedure? Where does "strict" come in?
you are just hashing words here. I think you know the meaning of strict so apply it to what you read above.
You are the one who keeps using "current" cliches. I want you to articulate the difference between a normal confirmation process and a "strict" confirmation process. You are out of your league, if you do not realize that, and, if you do realize that, you have no answer. I am bored with you. Bye, now.
I'd say the fact that no black firefighters passed it is a good reason to take a closer look at the result.
your projection is doibleplusgood, or doubleplussad whatever the case may be.
I already made my case that you are full of shit, every one of your posts in this thread has been nothing more than a continuous validation of that. Thanks for playing.
Now, do you have anything to add to this thread or are you going to continue to play the "Victim" of us baaad liberals? Because if you just came armed with your silly "Sotomayor is a racist" talking point, you must go and get some reinforcements from whatever cesspool you came from.
So that is basically all you got, calling a hispanic female a racist because she sat in a 3 judge panel reviewing a case that she had nothing to do with... that is it? And you must be so monumentally dumb to even realize that is probably not the best of strategies... I mean it takes balls of steel trying to come to this site and try to deflect the hypocrisy of racist piece of shit like Tancredo accusing a female minority of racism.
Oh, and BTW, again can you refrain from posting anything of the red herring persuasion? I don't feel like fish tonight, esp. not the smelly kind.
Can we get a better troll, please?
do you all not remember how we had to sit quiet as the idiots nominated extreme right wingers who would promote the evangelist point of view to the most important court in the land. now the shoe is on the other foot and they need to suck it up.
Just caught this article about George W. Bush's meetings with Chirac back in the day. There's a new Gentlemen's Quarterly article about the fact that GWB is freakin' NUTS!!!!! (Religiously speaking):
http://www.alternet.org/story/140221/
Also, the Republicans are going to find it very difficult to throw Sotomayor under the bus since President George H.W. Bush appointed her to be a judge!
"She said things that are racist in any other context..."
But NOT necessarily in the context she actually used hmm?
I bet they will soon be used the fact that she painted her living room beige instead of white as proof that she does not like "white people." One can only wonder what was the context these idiots are so desperately trying to take her opinions out of.
way to duck your ill prepared aurgument.
I was replying to somebody else's post, you dumbass...
go away.
n/t
shoddy memory of Italian-American history. I did a paper a few semesters back on the history of immigration policy, and the treatment of Italian immigrants during the Ellis years was in many ways unjust. Tanestupido should keep that in mind before he goes on another one of his little tirades.
Immigrants at ellis island at one point during the procedure were divided into 2 groups, immigrants with papers and 'With Out Papers'
Is that true?
... it turns out that if we dig deep enough into the family trees of some of our favorite blowhards (Tancredo, Hannity, O'reilly, et al) some of them may find that their family trees set root in this country illegally. Oh noes! Holy hypocrisy Batman!
In fact, a significant portion of the current lineup of FOX News would not even have been allowed in the premises of News Corp over half a century ago. WASPs used to not take too kindly all those WAPs, Micks, and Papists in general...
A lot of groups in the history of this country have had iffy legal status at times, and I think all of us need to have that perspective in the back of our minds and deal with today's immigrants with compassion.
After the completion of the Risorgimento- 1871- the Italian government realized they had a lot of poor, rural, illiterate citizens in southern Italy and Sicily that they couldn't support, so they encouraged them to leave. The Italian government didn't want to be bothered with the paperwork- which required civil servants not only to process, but to fill out in these cases- while they were shooing their citizens off to the US and Argentina, who took them anyway- but with a few more caveats than immigrants with visas.
And the fact that Russian and Irish immigrants did, for the most part, have documentation from the countries they left, the WOP tag wasn't applied to them.
Or it's applied more to Italians because it's from the Neapolitan "guappo": cocky.
You figure out which.
""I WOULD HOPE that a wise latin woman with the richness of her experiences would MORE OFTEN THEN NOT reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."-Sonia Sotomayor" -Sonia Sotomayor (emphasis added)
How in Holy Hell is this racist? She HOPES that someone WHO HAS THESE EXPERIENCES would consistently reach better conclusions than someone who has not?
I WOULD HOPE that an old, wizened white guy who had surveyed the trail we are taking would find a better route than a greenhorn who had never walked through here. Is that controversial?
PS: When I lived in Colorado, not only was Tancredo a Congressman but he appeared on a local PBS show with Peter Boyles. He was a rabid anti-immigration zealot then, too. He never got the irony: a Congressman from COLORADO was fervently anti-immigration (read: HISPANIC immigration). The state of COLORADO, SPANISH for "red". Irony, oh irony. As one California hispanic girl said: "My family has been here for 12 generations. I didn't cross the border; the border crossed ME"
..."lived that life"
She's obviously referring to a situation where a judge with a life history similar to the life history of someone who has case before them is in a better position to make judgements.
Thats where Tancredo is being full of crap. When he says 'in any other context' he is conveniently leaving out the context she's actually speaking in!
I like her as a pick and I'll support her; However, her comment should have left the "a white male" out and kept it to "someone who hasn't". Of course there is no standard "rich experience" that all latin women go through, so it would be even more appropriate just to refer to her own rich life experiences preparing her very well for making tough decisions on the court.
1. Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the bench than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. Over her three-decade career, she has served in a wide variety of legal roles, including as a prosecutor, litigator, and judge.
2. Judge Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She was the first Latina to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was the youngest member of the court when appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. If confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. While on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has consistently protected the rights of working Americans, ruling in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases.
4. Judge Sotomayor has shown strong support for First Amendment rights, including in cases of religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech.
5. Judge Sotomayor has a strong record on civil rights cases, ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, sex and race.
6. Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School.
7. In 1995, Judge Sotomayor "saved baseball" when she stopped the owners from illegally changing their bargaining agreement with the players, thereby ending the longest professional sports walk-out in history.
8. Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the environment in a case of protecting aquatic life in the vicinity of power plants in 2007, a decision that was overturned by the Roberts Supreme Court.
9. In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.
10. Judge Sotomayor is a widely respected legal figure, having been described as "...an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind," "highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets," and "a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity."
if you can cite your sources?
I really need to read up on this person.
Sources for each of the 10 things:
1. White House Statement, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-8925...
2. White House Statement, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-8925...
3. Cases: Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) and Marcella v. Capital Dist. Physicians' Health Plan, Inc., 293 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2002).
4. Cases: Flamer v. White Plains, 841 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2003), and Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F. Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
5a. "Sotomayor's Notable Court Opinions and Articles," The New York Times, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51454&id=16226-8925...
5b. Cases: Bartlett v. N.Y. State Board, 970 F. Supp. 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), Greenbaum v. Svenska Hendelsbanken, 67 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001), and Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999).
6. "Sonia Sotomayor: 10 Things You Should Know," The Huffington Post, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51452&id=16226-8925...
7. "How Sotomayor 'Saved' Baseball," Time, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51455&id=16226-8925...
8. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-8925...
9. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-8925...
10a. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-8925...
10b. "Sotomayor is Highly Qualified," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51456&id=16226-8925...
10c. Honorary Degree Citation, Pace University School of Law, 2003 Commencement.
Nice return backhand, ed!
calling this pick made by obama an affirmative action pick is unfair/ridiculous. this person is highly qualified.
to bring to court the issue of corporations being a person. Shit, they can't register to vote.
...is with a Constitutional Amendment.
Isn't this concept insane? Corps have all the rights of a citizen, and their only responsibility is to make profits for their shareholders. Outrageous.
http://www.thecorporation.com
at Borders last week.
The full title is "Corporations: Profit and Privilege" or something close to that. The authors last name is Bakan.
Outrageous is the word alright . Welcome to America the beautiful .
I know next to zero about Sotomayer but having heard a few of her quotes on the MSM tonight I am a tad concerned that she may be biased against or resentful toward whites , whether or not that is the case I don't know , never heard of her until now . As for Tancredo , no surprise there at his reaction , just another hypocritical Repug . The right will be throwing a shit fit over anybody Obama nominates that isn't to the right of Scalia for cryin out loud .
If all you know of her are the quotes that the MSM has decided to grace us with, it's no wonder you're concerned. But keep in mind, they're going to cherry-pick the bits and pieces that fit the story they've decided to tell, whether or not that story is accurate.
Geez, and to think that once upon a time, I thought of journalism as an honorable profession.
tancredo is such a close minded moron... what evidence is there that she is a racist? he didnt present one example... just falsely claimed it to make a stupid point.
Well, what do we expect? Of course the Party of all old white men is going to think that someone who doesn't look like them is a racist. Besides which, these guys aren't going to like anyone Obama picks. I don't care who she/he is.
But this attack will absolutely bite the Conservatives squarely on their white bigoted asses. Trust me on this, us black folk are through with them and their hateful bullshit for generations to come. Now the Repukes are trying the same racist three card monty on Latino Americans. These sick dumb bastards are still stuck in the fucking 1950's, they actually believe that they can win National elections without Blacks and Latinos by galvanizing white voters through paranoia and bigotry. Hilarious
I'm hoping that the Reslugs trot out more and more of their absolutely ignorant, loudmouth assholes to spew hatred. This way the few Reslugs remaining will embarrassly run from their sick hate and bigotry party.
Yet another spokes-clown spewing his twisted, distorted, Hatred. Oops! I forgot they do have those selected minorities that they allow to come to the front of the boat for photo ops. and they do give them prepared statements.
Sure must be terrible being a Old White guy with all those people of color and different languages around you looking at your wife and daughters. Such a shame, but will not let segregation die. The Grand Old Party of HATE Marches Forward.
Full text of the speech given in California by Judge Sotomayor:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2...
The speech was given as the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture, at a symposium called "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation."
In the speech, she talks about the fact that the changing ethnic and gender makeup of the higher courts will slowly lead to changes in decisions. Considering that until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case, I would take that to indicate that there is already some gender based bias in the decision making process of white male judges, unless maybe no discrimination occurred before 1972. She is just making the argument that everyone brings their own biases, based on cultural or religious reasons, to the bench. The quote that is never brought up when they trot out the "Judge Sotomayor is a racist" argument is made later in the speech:
"I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
To me, this sounds like an intelligent person who is willing to confront and analyze their own biases, in order to render decisions based in the real world. Although she is not as much as a lefty as I would like, she does seem to be someone capable of rising above their own limitations to try to see the bigger picture. A welcome foil to the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas wing of the court.
Thank you
Well Mr. T, am Italian and yes my father experienced racism yet he didn't change the spelling of his last name. We also kept our pride in our heritage. Now we managed to listen to our parents speak Italian and were able to pickup on the language because its easy to learn. I can't understand why Mr. T wasn't smart enough to pick up on his grandparents language. My parents thought we didn't understand and they would speak in Italian so we wouldn't know what they were saying. Little did they know. Now I have visited my relatives in the old country. I can speak the dialect. Dialects are different in the country depending on where you live. Mr. T. you come off as a racist.
but i did listen to big eddy on radio america on a regular basis. yes, there were some issues, i didn't always agree with but i can say when he was invited to "debate" on television, he was no coombs. he always held his own and made me proud. my only gripe was his pushing the gem car all the time on his show which was manufactured in fargo where his show originated from. my gripe there was the fact that he really didn't take the car manufacturers to task for stopping further development on a lighter and better battery for this wonderful little car. i bought one but was duly disappointed with the cost of the batteries and the battery life.
where was the outrage when bush II nominated harriet miers "the cleaning lady" to the position of associate supreme court justice. where was the false outrage of these self-righteous people then???
Login or Register to post comments.