Town Square

Post a New Topic

Obama picks Supreme Court Nominee..uh-oh...

Original post made by Perspective on May 26, 2009

Web Link

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," said Judge Sotomayor,...

Web Link

"Court of Appeals are where policies are made..." followed by a lot of ummming and oopsing..listen for yourself to the above tapes.

This is the woman Obama has picked for Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor.

No thanks. Yes, I like that she is a womman. Yes I like that she is Hispanic. But, do I want a sexist, racist, policy-maker ( yes, you know darn well that was her deeply-rooted belief) on the Court, or someone who will follow the CONSTITUTION and decide, based on LAW AND CONSTITUTION, not her "experiences as a Hispanic woman versus a white male" the basis of a case brought before her?

Please bring forth someone who will follow the Constitution, regardless of his or her color or experiences...I mean, really, do you want someone to judge your case based on her experiences or on her KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE HISTORY OF OUR LAWS????

If we are not careful, we are going to start gettting different decisions for different races and genders and wealth levels and whether the applicant lived in the northern snows or the southern deserts. C'mon!

Comments (126)

Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 7:03 am

Perspective did not waste anytime.


Web Link

"QUOTE — "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it." — During a 1997 nomination hearing."


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 9:09 am

Obama's Harriet Miers

She went to Catholic schools and would also be the sixth Catholic justice on the current Supreme Court.Is there something in Parochial Schools that leads to SCOTUS?

She may be enough for President Obama to continue weaving his quilt of cover on the road to a Freedom of Choice Act.

She was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of eight.
Juvenile diabetes leads to many grave medical problems in middle and late adulthood and a very high risk of early dementia and a shortened life span.


Posted by Peter, a resident of another community
on May 26, 2009 at 9:09 am

The quote Perspective quoted was wrenched painfully from its context. Here is the quote in full, along with comments by legal scholars on the reasons for her statement: Web Link

Basically, cases get to the appeals level because the laws are not clear. Appeals panels set policy because their decisions bring clarity to unclear legislation.



Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 9:20 am

Didn't take Sharon long to chime in also.
Sharon states:
"She was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of eight.
Juvenile diabetes leads to many grave medical problems in middle and late adulthood and a very high risk of early dementia and a shortened life span. "

Are you suggesting that she not be appointed because she had diabetes?
ARe you suggesting that we discriminate against her because of this condition?
What exactly are you suggesting?


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 9:38 am


We have health criteria for the POTUS, it is legitimate to have the the same or more stringent criteria for SCOTUS.

After all the POTUS is elected for two 4 year terms at most.
SCOTUS is appointed for life.

Here is the risk------

"Diabetic encephalopathy[53] is the increased cognitive decline and risk of dementia observed in diabetes.
Various mechanisms are proposed, including alterations to the vascular supply of the brain and the interaction of insulin with the brain itself.[54]"Web Link.

Ginsburg has pancreatic cancer, usually a terminal illness, but it does not entail cognitive impairment.

Sotomayor has already demonstrated erratic behavior from the bench, we have good and legitimate reason to be concerned about her cognitive ability moving forward.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2009 at 9:53 am

"We have health criteria for the POTUS..."

Since when? Since FDR was disqualified because he had had polio?

Our right wingnuts are grasping at ever smaller straws in their desperation. Their horror is understandable. Not only is Sotomayor Hispanic, she's a woman. Or is it the other way around? Either way, this is the Republican's golden opportunity to rid itself of the Hispanic vote forever. Go for it, kiddies.

"Obama's Harriet Miers"

Hardly. Miers was actually Bush's Monica, but nobody would believe him.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 9:57 am

Sharon--it appears that your health concerns for Supreme Court justices has suddenly come up because the nominee is Obama's.

"Sotomayor has already demonstrated erratic behavior from the bench, we have good and legitimate reason to be concerned about her cognitive ability moving forward."

No, we do not have any concerns at this time. this is just Sharon being Sharon--stirring the pot with outrageous comments and making vile comments about people she disagrees with.
Which "erratic" behavior are you referring to, Sharon?

Some links to articles countering Sharon's claims:

Web Link

Web Link

"Moreover, few, if any, in the medical profession view Sotomayor's diabetes as a major disqualifier. Far from it, many experts argue that there is a stigma attached to Type One diabetes that doesn't exist with other conditions. A history of coronary disease, high blood pressure, Crohn's Disease or Lupus can present far more difficult medical quandaries. The vast majority of the roughly 24 million people who suffer from diabetes live long and fruitful lives, with a list of political luminaries that includes former New York City mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, Mikhail Gorbachev and Menachem Begin."


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 10:05 am


Both FDR and JFK hid their physical disabilities,
mental disabilities are more difficult to hide and are of more concern in appointing key decision makers.

The issue for rational people is not identity politics--
whether the candidate is a woman, Latino, Black, Red, short or tall etc.

The issue for rational people is competence,
if the candidate suffers from the cognitive deficits that go with long term type 1 diabetes then that is of legitimate concern.


Posted by Slice it how you want, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 26, 2009 at 10:09 am

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"

Surely this is racist.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 10:13 am

I agree with Perspective and Slice it.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 10:35 am

"if the candidate suffers from the cognitive deficits that go with long term type 1 diabetes then that is of legitimate concern."

Well, Sharon, then there is no problem. Ms Sotomayor is not suffering from any cognitive defects. So your attempts to stir the pot with unfounded attacks on her abilities are bogus.
This is really grasping at straws--trying to discriminate against a court candidate because they have a certain, controllable ailment.
I suggest that if you have any, definitive proof showing that she is incompetent and/or is suffering from "cognitive defects" that you present it to us now.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 10:45 am


Rather than remote armchair diagnosis we need a full release of her medical records and a full neurological examination

"Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. "She is a terror on the bench."
"She is very outspoken."
"She can be difficult."
"She is temperamental and excitable.
She seems angry."
"She is overly aggressive --not very judicial.
She does not have a very good temperament."
"She abuses lawyers."
"She really lacks judicial temperament.
She behaves in an out of control manner.
She makes inappropriate outbursts."
"She is nasty to lawyers.
She doesn't understand their role in the system --as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other.
She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."Web Link

Pretty good evidence for taking a closer look.
Her emotional/ cognitive status has declined in recent yearsWeb Link


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 10:56 am

Really,Sharon, we need a full release of her medical records and a full neurological examination? Why? Because you have picked upon something as a basis for your vile attacks on your target de jour? WHo is "we"?? Aren't medical records private? has any other court nominee had to undergo your suggested examination? I can imagine the outrage from you and others had it been suggested that a nominee made by a republican president was "medically" unfit for the bench.

Regarding the quotes you listed above--who were they from? Were these quotes from lawyers that Sotomayor has ruled against.

You also forgot to quote another part of the story above:

"Not all of Sotomayor's lawyers' evaluations in other areas were this negative. As the Almanac puts it "most of lawyers interviewed said Sotomayor has good legal ability," and "lawyers said Sotomayor is very active and well-prepared at oral argument." I acknowledged both of these views in the piece."

Hopefully the republicans in the senate will not be dragged into the type of confrontation that Sharon suggests. On the other hand if they do, it may be the final nail in the coffin as far as republicans ever getting the latino vote again.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 11:06 am


Many on the radical left would like to frame this as a racial/ ethnic issue-- good luck with that

The issue for rational citizens is competence, the candidate has demonstrated emotional and cognitive decline in the last few years.

In 1998 many Republicans, including Santorum and Helms supported her.

Clearly something drastic has happened in terms of her competence since thenWeb Link

Also the category " hispanic" is a false artificial construct which should be retired.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 11:22 am

"Many on the radical left would like to frame this as a racial/ ethnic issue-- good luck with that'
Not just the radical left--if they follow your lead, Sharon, it will be, justifiably framed as a racial/ethnic issue. Considering your background, your vile comments regarding others on other threads, your bias and dislike for certain religious groups, I think we know where you are coming from.

"The issue for rational citizens is competence, the candidate has demonstrated emotional and cognitive decline in the last few years."

You do not provide any proof for the claims above. Only your take and comments from a minority of embittered lawyers. I guess you believe that if you make the same vile comments over and over again they will become true.
Ms Sotomayor is competent. Please provide proof otherwise your comments about cognitive decline are beneath contempt. Of course, i am not surprised by your comments considering that in other threads you falsely claimed to be a 9/11 survivor.

"Clearly something drastic has happened in terms of her competence since then"

Clear to whom? Are you going to post the same link over and over again like you do on other threads? You forget to mention that in your link, the author states that most of the lawyers have praised Ms Sotomayor.
Selective cherry picking of factoids is your calling card, Sharon.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2009 at 11:33 am

"Both FDR and JFK hid their physical disabilities"

Nonsense. FDR founded the March of Dimes to fight polio, remember? And JFK made rocking chairs very popular. Everybody knew, and respected their fortitude.

"Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. "She is a terror on the bench." "She abuses lawyers." "She is nasty to lawyers."

My, my, when did we stop making lawyer jokes and develop this tender concern for their pwecious widdle egos?

This alleged erratic behavior is just the latest Party line from the Republican Politboro and its General Secretary, Rush Limbaugh. Get serious, people: Sotomayor's "erratic" behavior would not be a right wingnut issue if it was authentic right wingnut erratic behavior.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2009 at 11:37 am

"The issue for rational citizens is competence"

True. But we also have Republicans.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 11:46 am


The solution is rational and fair

Full disclosure of medical records including cognitive/ emotional competence.




Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 12:05 pm

"The solution is rational and fair

Full disclosure of medical records including cognitive/ emotional competence."

Rational to whom? Fair to whom?
Who will these medical records be disclosed to? You?
Clearly you have latched on to your "target de jour" and are going full steam ahead against her. Why? because she has diabetes? Because you disagree that the vast majority of people with diabetes live long fruitful lives? Because you believe the anonymous comments made against her by some disgruntled lawyers?
No, the answer is very simple--Ms Sotomoyor is Obama's choice for the Supreme Court.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 12:12 pm

Web Link

""In the days leading up to this nomination, there were several media reports suggesting that Judge Sotomayor should not be considered for this position simply because she has type 1 diabetes," said Dr. R. Paul Robertson, president of the American Diabetes Association in a statement following Sotomayor's nomination. "The advancements in the management of type 1 diabetes have been just amazing over the last two decades and the ability of people to manage their diabetes successfully has been proven. People with diabetes can function and live a long and healthy life."


Posted by Jim, a resident of College Terrace
on May 26, 2009 at 12:20 pm

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"

Surely this is racist. I AGREE. Bad choice and I voted for Obama.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2009 at 12:27 pm

"The solution is rational and fair Full disclosure of medical records including cognitive/ emotional competence."

I can understand why Republicans never demand that for their own people. It would have disqualified Bush immediately. And what about Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, ... ? People who live in glass houses... . This could be fun.

OK, Sharon, set the example. Please provide a full disclosure of your medical records including cognitive/ emotional competence. It's only rational and fair.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 1:27 pm


Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity are not qualified to be judges, let alone SCOTUS,they are mere comedians.
But if they want a pilots license then they will have to provide medical/psych records.

What is the candidate hiding? just release the records,
If you look at the candidate you will see she is overweight, very dangerous for a type 1 diabetic.
I wish her a long life, but the risk is too great for a SCOTUS post


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 1:39 pm

"What is the candidate hiding? just release the records,"

Oh, now she is hiding something because she refuses Sharon's demand to release her medical records?

"If you look at the candidate you will see she is overweight, very dangerous for a type 1 diabetic."

A new vile attack by Sharon. How much does she weigh? What is Sharon's "acceptable" weight for a woman like her?

"I wish her a long life, but the risk is too great for a SCOTUS post "

What is the risk, exactly, to us?
All of your postings contain no facts, Sharon, just the usual attempts at character assassination and distortions.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Be thankful it was not a Sharia specialist.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2009 at 4:59 pm

"What is the candidate hiding? just release the records"

What is/was Dick Cheney hiding? Have you seen his medical records? Why don't you want to see them?

"But if they want a pilots license then they will have to provide medical/psych records."

Really? Bush claimed to be a National Guard pilot. Where are his medical/psych records? Where are the drug tests that the Guard mandated for its pilots just before he suddenly stopped flying, smack in the middle of his Guard obligation? What is he hiding? Have you asked? What's with this sudden medical curiosity?


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 5:23 pm

I think that her racist, sexist, comments are far more worrying than any potential health issue.

If a prospective white male candidate had said that he felt that his experience on the courts would make him a better candidate than any AA/Latino/?? woman candidate, then there would be uproar. How she can get away with what she said and still be respected beats me.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 5:24 pm

Red Herring alert from the above posters..I really don't care about the health of a Supreme Court nominee. It is a seat until death ( unfortunately, in my mind..we really should have forced retirement after a certain age..have you heard some of these older codgers trying to make sense?)

the isssue is, do we want a Supreme Court justice who is a racist and a sexist, or do we want a Supreme Court Justice who knows the Constitution, and WILL FOLLOW IT..not the "living, breathing" one, but the one that was written.

I don't want "living, breathing"..this leaves room for bringing "rich experience and wisdom of a hispanic woman" or "rich experience and wisdom of a white man" to the bench. I don't care if someone is green and has never left the a bubble, I want someone who knows the Constitution and will uphold it. No more rationalizing away our inherent rights laid out in our Constitution, please!!

This nominee, btw, had an opinion I strongly disagreed with concerning the Firefighters Appeal. I was hoping that she would have written something smart on this issue, but instead she did a knee-jerk letter ( was she already angling for a far-left seat on the court?)

Web Link

This is why I don't want her. She actually thinks that it is not racist to throw out a test and not promote everyone who passed the test simply because they weren't the right color.

I would LOVE to see that same opinion come down from her if it so happens that not a single white passes a test, only blacks and hispanics!

This kind of thinking appalls me in its complete lack of logic. It leads to this...

Web Link

This from "Slate" mag..hardly a right-wing nut case ( I would, in fact, argue the opposite)

"Of the 41 applicants who took the captain exam, eight were black; of the 77 who took the lieutenant exam, 19 were black. None of the African-American candidates scored high enough to be promoted. For both positions, only two of 29 Hispanics qualified for promotion."

This in a city which is "60% black" per the same article. If you take hte logic to its absurd conclusion, the entire process must be highly racist because the city is 60% black, but only 20% blacks applied to the Captain exam or the Lt exam. Hmmm..shouldn't even bother having firefighter exams at all.

Or, conversely, go out in the streets and gather enough black people, whether or not they want to be gathered, to try for the job, until you reach the quota that matches the city.

So, naturally, since no blacks passed, it must be a racist exam, so guess what, an entire city paralyzed in hiring anyone, damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

What a mess. I surely am begging for another Martin Luther King to arise from the ashes, and remind us about the basic idea of judging by content not color.

I am completely opposed to this poor thinking candidate. I have found nothing to commend her to me. The nice little quote above is easy to say, about "following the constitution"..but I can't find an unpc position yet that follows the constitution to commend her to me! She clearly believes, I don't care how much umming and aaahing she did to try to get herself out of her "freudian slip" that she would set "policy"...and like that! And she clearly has an opinion on which way the "policies" of our nation should go, since she clearly believes that the rich experience of a latina woman brings more to the bench than the limited experience of being a white man.



Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 5:33 pm

Well, I see that Rush has weighed in with his opinion:

Web Link

Anyone surprised with this?

Another view:
Web Link

"In any case, no one can say she doesn't have the credentials. But that's truly beside the point for conservative opponents. This is about two things: attacking her as an activist judge and ensuring their own survival. As a way to raise money, it works, but only after every complicated court decision is reduced to a digestible sound bite."


Bottom line, she is Obama's pick, so Limbaugh and his acolyte will be on the offensive.
Hmm--maybe we need to start whining about Limbaugh's vile comments the same way the Sharons of the world were whining about Wanda Syke's critique of Limbaugh.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2009 at 5:34 pm

"If a prospective white male candidate had said that he felt that his experience on the courts would make him a better candidate than any AA/Latino/?? woman candidate, then there would be uproar."

Spare us the phony PC. No white male nominated for the bench has to say anything of the sort. It's a given. And that given is what's really behind this anti-Sotomayor frenzy.

Can the code talk, people. Let's see some honesty in this forum.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 5:43 pm



I do not think Wanda Syke is a qualified candidate for SCOTUS either, just because she is a black,lesbian woman.
We shouldnt lower our standards for SCOTUS like this just to inflame identity politics.

Wanda is a comedian, just like Limbaugh, she also lacks empathy for his kidney disease. But his health problems would never qualify him for SCOTUS, I would disqualify him on his temperament and bias.


Posted by Slice it how you want, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 26, 2009 at 6:26 pm

"Paul" claims it's a given that a white male candidate feels that his experience being white would make him a better candidate than any AA/Latino/?? woman candidate.

This kind of blanket suspicion of racism is a problem. Is it in fact justified?

Paul, do you think Sotomayor did not make a racist statement?


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 26, 2009 at 9:08 pm

"Paul, do you think Sotomayor did not make a racist statement?"

From my middle-aged white male perspective, I do not think Sotomayor made a racist statement. She merely stated the fact that there is no way I can view the world from her perspective without having shared her experiences, which she listed.

Now, why do you feel threatened by that?


Posted by Slice it how you want., a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 26, 2009 at 10:34 pm



"She merely stated the fact that there is no way I can view the world from her perspective without having shared her experiences, which she listed."

Actually, no. This is an intentional mischaracterization; the tell is gratuitous use of "merely."

She said her perspective is *better* because of her race and sex. That should be threatening to anyone who wants to live in a color-blind world.

BTW, does being a white male give you special standing to claim that the white male is not as good a candidate for the supreme court as females of other races? Or that every white male is sexist and racist?

I think not. Condoning prejudice against white males is just as damaging to the lifeblood of our nation as condoning any other racial or sexual prejudice. And just as shameful.

Look, we're not in a multi-generational struggle over whether or not Hispanics are better than Caucasians. We're in a struggle over whether or not race matters.




Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 26, 2009 at 10:46 pm



Why is there no Asians male or female in the SCOTUS?

Given the actions against the Japanese Americans in WW2 the obvious thing, from a balanced point of view, is to appoint a Japanese lawyer.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 4:14 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I suspect that any random selection from the phone book [do they still have phone books?] would be better than any political appointment of either party. I would be satisfied with a 6 year non repeatable term for all judicial positions. I have come to question the wisdom that comes from absolute power.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 4:56 am

Completely agree, Walter. Buckley is the one who said something similar first, and I agree.

We aren't the first to think this way. The Greeks implemented, over 2500 years ago, a lottery system which determined who would be on its Ruling Council. They had to be from the qualified ranks, which were landed men, but I like the idea of 1) lottery and 2) Having direct skin in the game credentials to vote on the outcome for a nation. ( Ok, landed and men might be a bit too strict, but I am beginning to think that our nation would get better results for everyone from having only men who own their own homes outright be the "rulers" and "judges" in our land..and this from a lesbian!!)






Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 6:35 am

Sharon--I see we are trying to stir the pot once again. But your last two posts shows how ignorant you are of the facts (not that they have ever been an issue with your postings). Limbaugh would never be picked for the court because of his drug addiction and you could not select a Japanese lawyer because he is not a US citizen. Really, Sharon!!!


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2009 at 10:03 am

"does being a white male give you special standing to claim that the white male is not as good a candidate for the supreme court as females of other races? Or that every white male is sexist and racist?"

No. Why do you ask?

"Look, we're not in a multi-generational struggle over whether or not Hispanics are better than Caucasians. We're in a struggle over whether or not race matters."

You have done a very facile leap to unwarranted conclusions which apparently inflame you. How come? Calm down, read what I actually wrote, and try to think it through rationally. Try to ascertain if your indignation is genuine, and why. Have someone help you.

Maybe it will help if I frame the issue for you. Starting from very humble circumstances, a female member of a despised minority in a public housing project in the Bronx, Ms Sotomayor has achieved far more than anyone on this forum (I apologize to any Supreme Court nominees reading this). I would say that gives her a certain perspective, different from a white middle-aged male's. Wouldn't you agree?


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 10:18 am


A Japanese American lawyer would make sense if the criteria for SCOTUS is now all about grievance and restitution, why are there no Asian members or candidates? why are there no Native Americans?
We already had a Hispanic on SCOTUS in the 30s,Benjamin Cardozo,32-38,

he may have been gay also, a twofer :
"The fact that Cardozo was unmarried and was personally tutored by the writer Horatio Alger
(who had been accused of inappropriate sexual relations with young boys)
has led some of Cardozo's biographers to insinuate that Cardozo was gay, but no real evidence exists to corroborate this possibility."Web Link


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 10:31 am

Sharon you are so out of touch with reality with your hysterical, vile postings.
I am sure, much to your dismay, we will someday have an asian-american and native american member of the court.
Ms Sotomayor's nomination has nothing to do with grievance and restitution, though it sounds like that is your cause celebre de jour (yesterday was bashing Sotomayor personally)

As for Cardozo, I believe he was of Spanish descent. Some people consider the Portugese to be Hispanic other's do not. What does his sexual orientation have to do with anything? Is this another attempt to vilify someone who you dislike?

What is your real problem, Sharon?


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2009 at 10:47 am

"A Japanese American lawyer would make sense..."

Indeed. Excellent replacement for Scalia.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 11:13 am


John Yoo Web Link Korean American, he would make a great candidate for SCOTUS

Empathy Triumphs Over Excellence

"Obama had some truly outstanding legal intellectuals and judges to choose from—Cass Sunstein, Elena Kagan, and Diane Wood come immediately to mind.
The White House chose a judge distinguished from the other members of that list only by her race.
Obama may say he wants to put someone on the Court with a rags-to-riches background, but locking in the political support of Hispanics must sit higher in his priorities.

Sotomayor's record on the bench, at first glance, appears undistinguished.
She will not bring to the table the firepower that many liberal academics are asking for.
There are no opinions that suggest she would change the direction of constitutional law as have Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, or Robert Bork and Richard Posner on the appeals courts.
Liberals have missed their chance to put on the Court an intellectual leader who will bring about a progressive revolution in the law."Web Link


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 11:21 am

Your initial link, Sharon, is not working. Is this "torture memo" John Yoo? I seriously doubt that even the republicans would want him as a nominee, but when one of them get selected president they can surely try.
Are we supposed to take his comments about Sotomayor seriously? Obviously you do, Sharon.


Posted by PointOfView, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 11:48 am

I am indeed inflamed by blithe sustenance of racism and prejudice. Even if it is motivated by a sense of fairness.

It may be that some despise Hispanics; I do not.

It may be that the world view of a middle-aged white man allows him to articulate a point better than Sotomayor. I doubt it. I believe she is sufficiently articulate to say what she means. And I believe based on what she has said and what she has decided that she will perpetuate different treatment based on race.

As I "frame" the issue, there are those good-hearted people who want to attempt to attenuate past and current unfairness by favoring those races which have suffered discrimination, and there are those clear-headed people who attempt to move as quickly as possible to make it a given that race doesn't matter w/r to role in society.

The goal of the attenuation is get to color blind. But instead of accelerating that day, it postpones it.

Take the racism out of it, and see what we have: "I would hope that a wise candidate with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a candidate who hasn't lived that life." Makes a point.

But "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," does not sound good to me.

Perhaps it sounds good to some people. I cannot frame the "Latina" vs. "white male" part of this in such a way as to want that thinking on the Supreme Court.

These are the words that an experienced judge chose to use, not the whim of a Palo Alto on-line poster.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2009 at 12:04 pm

Now just who do you think you're trying to fool, POV? "Race-neutral" is the old worn-out right wing code phrase for "back to those good 'ol fifties" when

Guys like us we had it made/And you knew who you were then/Girls were girls and men were men.

Those days are gone. Sorry.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 2:09 pm



The Road To Serfdom Web Link


Scroll down to the graphic, it summarizes the path we are on.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 3:45 pm

Ok, leftists, you win.

I think that from now on we should pick judges for any case based on who the litigants are. Clearly the only fair thing to do would be to have only judges who match the litigants' race, gender, age, numbers of parents the litigants grew up with, amount of money and education the parent(s) had and the litigants have..no matter what, I think we should simply add onto the list that is necessary for a good judge to have when judging a case.

Obviously we have moved beyond the archaic and ancient ( out with the old, in with the new "change") notion of "blind justice". We have moved into the enlightened phase of humanity where a judge can, nay SHOULD, use his or her own experiences to relate to the case, not consitutional law, precedents, and clear, analytical, logical thinking. I am SO looking forward to the emotion driven pell-mell decisions we will see ever more of.

I can't wait for (more) decisions that have no basis in law or consititutional principals, and every basis in political hope and change. A city wants more money? Bring it on, folks. Kick out the poor and tear down their homes so that the city can build more taxable homes and businesse. Don't have enough hispanic females passing a firefighter's exam? Throw out the test and don't promote all the men who passed it, must be sexist and racist.

There are a lot of ways our Constitution is flawed, according to Obama in 2001, who said that one of the big flaws is that our Supreme Court has been hampered in "redistributing the wealth" in this country by that pesky "negative rights" document. But hey, who needs to follow our Constitution any more, if we have judges with "empathy" and a "compelling life story"!!

Good grief people.

I am completely disgusted. It seems we have totally abandoned any ability to talk about ideas, policies, attitudes, principals..anything that actually matters any more. It is ALL about the supremely racist and sexist identity politics and, apparently the latest criterion, "life story". ( I guess we will have to make some kind of rubric to decide what constitutes a "life story" worth puttin on the bench. On this rubric we will have some points for disabilities, lost parents, neighborhoods, number of moves, number of siblings, whether or not you worked your way through college or had it given to you, etc. )

I am thoroughly and completely disgusted with the level our country has sunk to in all ways.

48,000,000 of us voted against this kind of .."thinking" for lack of a better term...how many millions had any idea that this is what they were voting for when they voted for Obama? How many have voters' remorse?

Better start standing up, Obama voters, we need you to save this country.





Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 27, 2009 at 3:58 pm

"Ok, leftists, you win."

You have a firm grasp of the obvious. Have been for a long time: democracy replacing kings, church-state separation, abolition of slavery, universal civil rights, universal education, women's rights, interracial marriage, gay acceptance (in progress). History's arc is leftward; the right's retreat is steady and accelerating.

"I can't wait for (more) decisions that have no basis in law or consititutional principals, and every basis in political hope"

You want more Bush v. Gore, 2000? More activist judges thwarting the will of the people? Why?

BTW, that's principles, not principals, unless you're intending a very bad pun.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 5:57 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Bush vs Gore 2000? My God, Paul, you sure do the democrat rosary beads. In 9 years all they proved was that the democrats needed to work harder on rejecting military ballots and that democrat majority precincts were poor planners. Democrats got better in Washington State when they stole the governorship by 'finding" ballot boxes all over the place.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 27, 2009 at 6:16 pm



At least her husband wasn't a fan of the Alaskan Independence Party: Sotomayor's college yearbook page included a quote from Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas.Web Link


George Will says Sotomayor didn't save Major League Baseball--in fact, she harmed it.Web Link

Law professor Jonathan Turley says Sotomayor is not that smart.Web Link=


Posted by Kate, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 27, 2009 at 8:01 pm

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"

So what if she is Latino. So what if she had a difficult early family situation. So did Clarence Thomas and noone cared about that fact. In fact, noone even wanted to talk about it. The media and usual liberal groups went straight for the jugular. Noone talked about his difficult childhood situation. Noone cared that Alberto Gonzales was Latino when President Bush appointed him as Attorney General. Liberals went straight for the jugular again. Definitely a double standard is being applied here.

The few statements by Sotomayor that we know of to date, including the one above, reveal a person who is a racist at heart and I don't want to have someone like that on the Supreme Court for life. I don't care what your race, gender or sexual orientation is . . . I don't want you on the Supreme Court if you are a racist.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2009 at 5:40 am

Well, shhh..be careful everyone..the WHITE HOUSE has warned critics to be CAREFUL what we say!! Wonder what they'll do to those of us in dissent?

Ya know, we have to be careful not to be misunderstood by the HISPANIC commmunity and WOMEN, because, ya know, Hispanic Women are too stupid to understand what people are trying to tell them/us!

Ever growing soft tyranny of the left. And you all wonder why there are so many anonymous posters? Wouldn't want the White House to know I..a hispanic lesbian, dared to say that Sotomayor is at the least a SEXIST RACIST, and I don't care WHAT ELSE SHE IS..I DON'T WANT HER!!

BLIND JUSTICE! I don't want to be judged with "empathy of life experience", I want my judgements to be set by our Constitution and LAWS, then meted out to me.

Unbelievable that there is ANHYONE on the left who can defend these statements!



Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2009 at 6:45 am

I see Sharon and Perspective are on the attack again:

"Sotomayor's college yearbook page included a quote from Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas"

How shocking. CLearly because Thomas was a socialist (gasp) everything he ever said is evil, evil. And clearly Sotomayor must be a socialist (gasp) since she used his quote.

"George Will says Sotomayor didn't save Major League Baseball--in fact, she harmed it"

That should definitely disqualify her for the bench, period. Also note the source.

"Law professor Jonathan Turley says Sotomayor is not that smart."

Well if Turley says she is not that smart, she should not be on the bench either. After all, Turley's opinion carries more weight than anyone elses.


"a hispanic lesbian, dared to say that Sotomayor is at the least a SEXIST RACIST"

interesting, Sharon once claimed to be a asian jew, now perspective claims to be a hispanic lesbian.
Notice how the MO of the hysterical right is to brand minorities as racists. When you run out of facts go around screaming that someone is a racist


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2009 at 9:05 am

Web Link

"There can be no debate over her qualifications. Her lifetime achievements in the academic world, in the legal world and the judicial world are unchallengeable. If that was the only measure, she would be confirmed unanimously."

and

"Sotomayor is not deserving to be on the Supreme Court because she is Puerto Rican or a woman. She has been appointed by the president because she is extremely well-qualified. Judge those qualifications fairly and without malice. To do less will antagonize Hispanic and female voters, two voter groups Republicans must do better with to have any chance of electoral success."

I am sure that Rollings will now be vilified by the Limbaugh/Gingrich/Sharon/Perspetive clique


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 28, 2009 at 9:36 am

"Ya know, we have to be careful not to be misunderstood by the HISPANIC commmunity and WOMEN"

Democrats love watching Republican right wingnut extremists kiss off voter bloc after voter bloc. Way to go, Perspec. You've stolen a page from the old liberal hippie playbook. It worked for them; it'll work for you.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2009 at 11:45 am

"The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor.
But what damage did Democrats suffer when they viciously attacked Miguel Estrada's nomination by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second-highest court?
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was particularly ugly,
labeling Mr. Estrada a right-wing "stealth missile" who was "way out of the mainstream" and openly questioning Mr. Estrada's truthfulness.Web Link


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2009 at 11:51 am

Comparing apples and oranges now, Sharon? Now did the democrats "viciously" attack Miguel Estrada. Once again you resort to hysterical, inflammatory rhetoric to try to make a pathetic point.
Let the republicans attack Sotomayor and we will see what happens.
BTW, wrong link.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2009 at 11:58 am


", I offer five broad questions for Sotomayor:

1) What is your perspective on the Supreme Court's role in national security and what role would it play in your decision-making?

2) Do you view the war on al Qaeda as an armed conflict or as a law-enforcement mission? Is this a "war" we are fighting against international terrorism?

What is your expertise in the laws of war and what background do you have in this area of the law?

3) The Obama and Bush administrations seem to embrace the idea that increased surveillance is necessary to protect US citizens from potential terrorist attacks. The Terrorist Surveillance Program and the updated FISA Law passed by Congress last year have boosted the government's surveillance powers.

What are your views on the constitutionality of these programs?

4) Are military commissions the correct venue for trying alleged al Qaeda fighters? Is preventive detention in this conflict with al Qaeda ever permissible?

Do national-security courts -- where sitting federal judges would preside over proceedings during which prosecutors outline why suspects should be detained or convicted -- offer the right balance between promoting national security and following the rule of law?

5) Should the detainees at Bagram Air Base have the same rights as those held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center? Do you feel that detainees who have allegedly violated the laws of war should have greater constitutional protections than would prisoners of war who acted in accord with the Geneva Conventions?

In the past, questions such as these wouldn't have been as critical. But such matters of national security now carry enormous influence and affect both ongoing military operations and the protection of American citizens.

This nomination will have an impact on our society for generations.

As national security remains at the forefront of policy and law debates, answers to these five questions are essential for both policymakers and citizens to better understand the positions of any nominee -- and perhaps more importantly, to ensure that the nominee reflects who we are, and who we want to be, as the America of the 21st century. Web Link


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 28, 2009 at 12:01 pm

"The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor."

You can lap up all the media stuff all you want; I prefer facts. The Republican party is the modern incarnation of the Know Nothings and other sporadic nativist movements that have graced American history, and its knee jerk animosity to Hispanics (code word: "immigrants") is well known. This case is just another brick in its tomb, which is by the tombs of the Know Nothings and other sporadic nativist movements, in the ashbin of American history.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 28, 2009 at 12:15 pm


The Know Nothings agenda was anti Roman Catholic and to a lesser extent anti Jewish.
If the new candidate for SCOTUS gets her seat there will be 6 Roman Catholics out of the 9, and 2 Jews.

So I am afraid your analogy does not work-- nice try-- a little reading of history helps with the cigar--


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 28, 2009 at 1:18 pm

One of us has their history and logic badly confused, and it ain't the immediate oversigned.

"The Know Nothings agenda was anti Roman Catholic and to a lesser extent anti Jewish"

Give 'em a break. They were being as Republican as they could at the time. It was fashionable to be anti-Catholic then. It was a habitual old world thing and, besides, a lot of Catholics were Irish immigrants (aha! that word again). The Know Nothings were anti Jews to a lesser extent out of necessity - they didn't have very many Jews to be anti against. The Jews mostly immigrated(!) later.

OK, if you're for affirmative action on the Supreme Court that's your choice. I haven't checked on Ms Sotomayor's religion (or on the current Supremes either) but if she's Catholic and the Republicans oppose her, that logically puts them with the Know Nothings, doesn't it?


Posted by Perespective, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 8:26 am

I see the leftist SF Chron is trying to frame opposition to Sotomayer as based on one sentence in 2001 ( the now infamous and paraphrasing "wise latina better than white male" phrase). Frankly, even if that WERE the only thing against her, I would dislike her intensely. She shames all latinas everywhere with that kind of racist, sexist talk.

But, let's carry it furether, and be sure to ignore the ruling just last year to keep the white and latino firefighters from bring promoted just because there didn't happen to be a black who passed the promotion exam. No basis in common sense or law at all, but who cares? By logicum absurdum, "no blacks passed so it must be racist" wins in this woman's "legal" mind.

No thanks. I would not like to enshrine on the throne of the Supreme Court anyone who thinks like this.

The funny thing is that if Justice Roberts had EVER said anything remotely like "A white man would come to a better decision over a latina " he would have had to go into hiding to protect himself an never, ever would even have been considered by ANY Republican for a Supreme Court position.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 8:39 am

Even some staunch republican conservatives oppose the Limbaugh/Gingrich/Perspective/Sharon hysterical cries that Sotomoyor is racist:

Web Link

Aren't you being a bit over the top with your comment--"She shames all latinas everywhere with that kind of racist, sexist talk."
I think you will find that most latinas are thrilled about her and her nomination. Clearly if we want to start taking quotations out of context we could have areal filed day. Anyway, if you want to disqualify her from the Supreme Court based on that one quote (since it is clear that you really are digging deep and making up lies against her), you are living in a fantasy world.

Anyway perspective, isn't your comment (""A white man would come to a better decision over a latina ") really how many conservative republicans feel about minorities and women in general. Isn't that one
of the reasons they do so poorly among those voting groups?


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 9:26 am



If you look at the broader context of Sotomayor's Latina Lecture, you will understand her views on race, gender, objectivity and justice.
She thinks putting aside personal predilections based on race and gender might be positively harmful, and that people might have "basic differences in logic and reasoning" based on their race and gender


The passage:



"While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.
Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.
And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.
Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives,
either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning,
are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address."


Maybe that explains the jury's verdict in the OJ Simpson murder trial.
They may have been Nihilists alsoWeb Link


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 9:39 am

Web Link

" To lift one statement out of Judge Sotomayor's eight-page speech without examining the context and substance of her remarks, is an example of the kind of shoddy character assassination that I suspect will dominate this judicial confirmation process.

Judge Sotomayor's speech is, in fact, an excellent meditation on how the experiences of judges might affect how they approach aspects of judicial decision-making. It explores the important, and too-little examined reality that judicial deliberations can be affected by a judge's background, perspective and experience."


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2009 at 10:16 am

"A white man would come to a better decision over a latina"

As a member of the white male persuasion, I blend easily into the white male inner sanctums. And this is what I hear from the white male Republicans I encounter everywhere, at least in private. Republican white males speaking in public are much less frank with their opinions, fearing what liberals might say.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 11:21 am



We know from the videos what Rev Wright and his congregation say in public about White Americans.

Imagine what THEY say in private, behind closed doors.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 11:27 am

Well, at least Sharon admits what her and conservative republicans say behind closed doors. Is Rev Wright up for a political appointment? Is Rev Wright going to be one of the senators who will vote on Sotomayor? then why bring him up, Sharon?


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2009 at 11:43 am

"We know from the videos what Rev Wright and his congregation say in public about White Americans. Imagine what THEY say in private, behind closed doors."

The key word is "imagine." Repubs get themselves so worked up over imaginary things. But you did not dispute my statement about concealed WM opinions, so I can only imagine that you would consider Republicans and the Rev Wright equivalent. I wouldn't. The Rev Wright shows the courage of his convictions in public. White Republican males are too chicken to do that. I disagree with both, but I'd trust Wright.

Now consider this:

"President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, is a proud and accomplished Latina. This fact apparently drives some prominent Republicans to a state resembling incoherent, sputtering rage." Web Link


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 11:57 am



Kimberly Strassel has an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal on Obama's nomination of Sotomayor:Web Link

"President Barack Obama has laid down his ground rules for the debate over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
The big question now is whether Republicans agree to play by rules that neither Mr. Obama nor his party have themselves followed.

Ground Rule No. 1, as decreed by the president, is that this is to be a discussion primarily about Judge Sotomayor's biography, not her qualifications.
The media gurus complied, with inspiring stories of how she was born to Puerto Rican immigrants, how she was raised by a single mom in a Bronx housing project, how she went on to Princeton and then Yale.
In the years that followed she presumably issued a judicial opinion here or there, but whatever.

The president, after all, had taken great pains to explain that this is more than an American success story.
Rather, it is Judge Sotomayor's biography that uniquely qualifies her to sit on the nation's highest bench -- that gives her the "empathy" to rule wisely.
Judge Sotomayor agrees: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she said in 2001.

If so, perhaps we can expect her to join in opinions with the wise and richly experienced Clarence Thomas.
That would be the same Justice Thomas who lost his father, and was raised by his mother in a rural Georgia town, in a shack without running water, until he was sent to his grandfather.
The same Justice Thomas who had to work every day after school, though he was not allowed to study at the Savannah Public Library because he was black.
The same Justice Thomas who became the first in his family to go to college and receive a law degree from Yale."

Also

A new Quinnipiac poll shows that 54 percent of voters approve of Obama's pick of Sotomayor.
The most interesting question, I think, in the poll is this:

Do you think making the Supreme Court look like the rest of the nation in terms of race, religion, ethnicity, and gender is more important than a justice's legal qualifications for the job, less important or about as important?

Fifty-four percent of Democrats say that race, religion, ethnicity, and gender is "about as important" or "more important" than legal qualifications;
76 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of independents say race, etc., is less important than legal qualifications.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 12:48 pm

Thank you very much for that post, Sharon.

Here is another one on the Sotomayer nomination.

Written by John Hasnas, a visiting law professor at Duke, for the WSJ today, ( in case the link at the end of this post doesn't work, just go to the onlinewsj dot com and enter his name under search..it is public record)

Called "The Unseen Deserve Empathy Too". A beautifully written explanation of what is now called "conservative" thought, but which used to be called rational, thoughtful, taking into account unintended consequences, thought.

[Portion removed due to possible copyright infringement]

Web Link


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 1:04 pm

"76 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of independents say race, etc., is less important than legal qualifications."

So what percentage of people feel Sotomayor does not have the legal qualifications to be on the Supreme Court? What do you think, Sharon, disqualifies her-besides the fact that she is an Obama nominee.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2009 at 1:12 pm

C'mon, people. You're only fooling yourselves with all this judicial activism smokescreen hooey. Republicans want all the judicial activism they can get, if it works in their favor. Don't forget Bush would not have been president if five judicial activists on the Supreme Court hadn't blown off the Constitution and trampled states' rights to put aside the voters' will.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 1:25 pm

Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror?


Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male;
that she doubts it is actually possible to "transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law";
and that there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning."
If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause?
Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?

Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed,
a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 1:43 pm

Sharon-- I suggest you read Paul's weblink. Here it is again
Web Link

I asked you if you felt she was not qualified to be on the Supreme Court and you come back with hypothetical scenarios involving jury selection.

Then you come up with a conclusion based on no facts whatsoever:

"Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?"

Really, Sharon, are facts that foreign to you? (I know the answer,but it never hurts to ask again)


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2009 at 1:52 pm

"Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male"

You can't get out of jury duty that easy. The judges know all the tricks.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2009 at 2:51 pm

"You have a firm grasp of the obvious. Have been for a long time: democracy replacing kings, church-state separation, abolition of slavery, universal civil rights, universal education, women's rights, interracial marriage, gay acceptance (in progress). History's arc is leftward; the right's retreat is steady and accelerating."

Paul, that's a biased list, and you left out a few things:

1. Over 100 millions people murdered in the 20th century, under the banner of socialism. BTW, that's more than all the wars in recorded history, combined. The Soviet Union provided universal health care...the cost was sacrificing individual freedom and mass murder.

2. Leftist movements have been more in the direction of tyrany, not democracy.

3. You failed to mention confiscatory taxation, and overregulation, and the reduction in economic growth that ensues from such leftist fantasies.

4. If you are going to tout abortion, you should at least acknowledge the holacaust of immense pain and suffering by the millions of unborn humans, whose silent scream is always ignored by the left.

5. The left opposed Second Ammendment (and Tenth Ammendment) rights. It is an INDIVIDUAL right to own a gun, not a state right. The essential states rights guaranteed by the Tenth have been bulldozed by leftists...I suggest this trend will be overturned, as more and more states demand their own decisions, guaranteed by the Constitution..., btw, some on the left will join this movement (e.g. state vs federal marijuana laws).

6. It was NOT the left that won the cold war. It was Reagan. Slam dunk on this issue...in fact, the left was disappoined that the Soviet Union is no longer around. Pink diaper babies always felt a stir in their hearts when the "Internationale" was played. They still do. No wonder they hate Reagan.

7. Insitutionalized racism (aka affirmative action) is a creation of the left. What "universal civil rights" are you talking about?

8. Univeral education? Really? The left OPPOSES educational vouchers that guarantee this. The left is anything BUT supportive of quality and choice in education...completely bankrupt on this issue. The teachers' unions are a disaster for k-12 education.

9. Gay acceptance: Prop 8 passed. The gay mafia pushed too hard, including the attack on that Miss California gal. The backlash is in full swing. At least at this point, the right is winning that war...if it is left to a direct vote of the people.

10. Womens' rights: Very mixed bag. Most people support equal pay for equal productivity, but women are very tired of trying to have it all, and do it all. In fact, many educated women are reverting back to a background roles in marriage and jobs...these younger women actually do want to have babies and raise a family.

I could add many more things, but I think it is clear that the arc of freedom (and happiness) has been led by the right, not the left. More freedom is in our future not less, Paul. That means the right has a very bright future, and the left is on the ash heap of history.

Oh, btw, Bush v Gore was a decision by the SC to PREVENT Gore from stealing the Florida election (Bush won it fair and square)...it continues to amuse me to hear lefties whine about their own misstatement of the facts. That was NOT an activist decision...it was just a sober decision.

One last thing: Sotomayor is a racist, but she is not the first racist to serve on the SC, and she won't be the last. She carries Obama's water, and that is good enough. There is no chance that she will get Borked.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Denial is always the first reaction, Gary. Anger is the next, which is where most right wingnuts are these days. You've been left behind by even your own people. Move on.

Florida 2000 always gets Repubs' juices flowing. I think it's residual guilt at the gross trashing of states' rights, that sacred cow created to block Federal interference with Jim Crow.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 3:25 pm




Based upon her own words, it sounds like Judge Sotomayor will begin her Senate confirmation hearing by exclaiming

Viva La Raza.

The remainder of the hearing should prove anti-climactic.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 3:28 pm

"Based upon her own words, it sounds like Judge Sotomayor will begin her Senate confirmation hearing by exclaiming
Viva La Raza."

Do you know this for a fact, Sharon? Or is this your latest attempt to vilify this fine judge only because she happens to be Obama's choice for the Supreme Court?
This sounds to me like something a racist, who has problems with minorities, would say.

Your life seems to be made up of taking bits and pieces of what people have said, out of context, and posting them on this forum.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 3:41 pm


Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.
Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law.

The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

La Raza was condemned in 2006 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."

Viva La Raza


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2009 at 3:45 pm

"states' rights, that sacred cow created to block Federal interference with Jim Crow."

Paul, ah actually, those states rights ware guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment...long before Jim Crow. Here it is for you, since you probably haven't read it:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

As with the Second Amendment, the lefties are on the wrong side of history and consitutional understanding. Watch and learn, Paul.



Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 3:52 pm

Looks like Sharon has latched onto something new to attack Sotomayor with


Web Link
Web Link

Not sure where she has come up with the claims that the group "promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police."


"Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: "
Look who heavily criticized her--Gingrich and Limbaugh. Even the republican senator from Texas, Sen Cornyn, has stated that Gingrich and Limbaugh were out of line.
We have had enough discussions and postings regarding this issue and how it is being taken out of context by people who have no use for the facts, like Sharon

"The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal."
How shocking a lecture by noted latina is published in a La Raza law journal--grounds for her immediate disqualification from the court. Of course the question is how is she responsible for the lecture being published anyway.

"La Raza was condemned in 2006 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga."
Well if Norwood condemned La Raza then...
This issue is discussed at length in the wikipedia link above.
Clealy she is guilty by association given Norwood's statements and should withdraw her name immediately.


Is that all you have, Sharon, is factoids and ridiculous claims to bolster your case against Sotomayor?


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on May 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm

"Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police."

Amnesty??? That was George W Bush's thing.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 4:55 pm


We have her on video, not quite as nuanced as Rev Wright but--

Judge Sonia Sotomayor:

Court is Where Policy is MadeWeb Link


Posted by Perspectivev, a resident of Midtown
on May 29, 2009 at 9:11 pm

I have to ask..seriously..possible copyright infringement if linked to the original source, and given full footnote credit for the source? Is that really true?

In any case, sorry about that.

How much can one quote from an article ( which we all do all the time here to make it easier on the readers) before it becomes "possible copyright infringement?

Well, in any case folks, please read the whole thing. It makes a great case, starting with a 159 year old quote from a French economist and parliamentarian, for WHY we don't want judges who have empathy and sympathy for the ones they SEE in a case.. The case is basically because it is easy to let our sympathy and compassion for the ones we SEE overcome our sense about the consequences on the ones we CAN'T see when we rule only in the favor of the ones we see.

Some great examples ( sorry, gotta paraphrase here)..

we can have sympathy for the disabled child in front of us and his family, and say "what the heck, let's get them some money from the insurance whether or not the MD really did do something wrong"..and yet we DON'T see and thus DON'T have the compassion for the children yet to be born in rural areas without adequate MD care..who fled because insurance costs rose too high.

or for the unemployed sitting in front of us, and we rule for the company to re-hire them...but we DON'T see the many NOT employed in the future from businesses willing to take less risks with people they may be stuck with.

etc..

And THAT is why I don't want a sympathetic, compassionate judge who is going to use her own hard life's experiences to make policy in this country. Leave that to other countries with more "compassion"...and a lot less of everything else.

Not to mention the inherent racism and sexism that this woman presents..yuk.

Link to my paraphrasing above in the WSJ.

Web Link


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on May 31, 2009 at 6:09 pm


Democrats differ on 'wise Latina' defensesWeb Link


As Republicans continue to hammer Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor for a 2001 assertion that's become known as the "wise Latina" remark, her backers are struggling to come up with a single coherent line of defense.
In the past few days, supporters confronted with the remark have offered a range of divergent tactics and tones, offering explanations that span from apologetic to defiant to suggesting Sotomayor may have been joking.

If the legislative law doesn't sit with her, she finds a way as a judge to get around it, in my opinion," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said



Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 7:02 am

Yes, Sharon, much to your chagrin, democrats are allowed to differ. How terrible--people differing with one another instead of marching in lock step to the tune of a former drug addict. How refreshing.

Not sure where you get the idea that republicans are "hammering" Sotomayor. If you mean the "racist" comments spewed by you, Gingrich and Limbaugh, those have been condemned by a number of Republican senators including Cornyn and Sessions.

Perhaps Sen Graham would like to provide an example for him claims regarding Sotomayor. Otherwise he is no better than Sharon with less than factual claims.

I agree with Sen Leahy that if these vile attacks continue, then the hearings should be sped up in order to give Sotomayor a forum to respond (as we all know SC nominees do not speak with the press until their hearings)


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 7:28 am

Please find one racist statement by Limbaugh or Gingrich or ANYONE. The "hammering" you are referring to is from willy-kneed Repubs who have lost their principles, beaten into believing that the American people are too stupid to listen and decide for themselves what is going on. They have become Democrats, and frankly I wish they would simply change teams and be done with it. As proof, I ask you to find ONE vote that Sessions or Cornyn went with the Repubs on aside from the "Destim" bill in the last 2 years.

"Speeding up the hearings" is what the plan is in any case. If there is no oppostion, then the hearings speed through to their foregone conclusion. IF there is oppostion, then the hearings speed up to "shield" her. She is going to be confirmed, there is no doubt whatsoever about that,and the only hope we have is to make sure that we make completly clear to her AND THE PUBLIC that we KNOW her and how she thinks based on her history ( just like we KNEW Obama and what he was going to do..and we were right), so that as time goes by the American people begin to have some comparisons between how a conservative thinks and what the results are, and how a liberal thinks, and what the results are.

The American people still have not woken up to the fact that the neo-liberal and the neo-con have switched sides, and the neo-con, otherwise known as "conservative" , is the one defending freedoms and justice for all now, friends with life and liberty lovers in all oppresive regimes. The neo-liberal is..well, Obama and Sotomayor, Pelosi and Reid, Dean and Schumer. What do they stand for and defend? Who are their friends around the world? Whose side are they on in the lands of the oppressed?

Ok, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck..


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 7:37 am

Perspective---thanks for an amusing diatribe.

"As proof, I ask you to find ONE vote that Sessions or Cornyn went with the Repubs on aside from the "Destim" bill in the last 2 years."

Here you go:
Web Link


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 8:00 am



Sotomayor should not apologize, she said what she meant and means.

The Chicago-Tribune's Steve Chapman sounds a similar note:Web Link

Sotomayor, [her supporters] point out, also said judges
"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."

Her allies have a point.
Anyone who reads the whole speech will indeed find that her comment wasn't as bad as it sounds.

It was worse.

What is clear from the full text is that her claim to superior insight was not a casual aside or an exercise in devil's advocacy.
On the contrary, it fit neatly into her overall argument, which was that the law can only benefit from the experiences and biases that female and minority judges bring with them.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 8:06 am

Sharon--your postings are getting more and more desperate. First you claim that she has a mental defect because she suffers from diabetes. Then you claim she is a racist. Now you chose to harp on a single sentence, taken out of context, from a speech given 8 years ago.
Why? Because she is Obama's pick for the Supreme Court.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 10:06 am



The president is subject to the 25th Amendment, which provides a clear procedure to remove him from office should he become unable to "discharge the powers and duties" assigned.
Since 1980, federal judges must answer to complaints charging them with being too ill to make decisions—

but the Supreme Court is immune from that law.

This situation underlies the public's interest in Sotomayor's Type 1 diabetes.
Because justices are given lifetime tenure with no possibility for review from any governmental bodies (or even their peers), the public tries to anticipate whether a nominee has any remote chance of becoming seriously ill or mentally incompetent.
Unfortunately, no doctor or shaman can reliably predict the future perfectly, particularly when it comes to conditions like Type 1 diabetes.



It's highly unlikely that a future Justice Sotomayor will accidentally overdose herself with insulin, thereby causing severely depressed blood-sugar levels and serious brain damage.
But in case that ever does happen, our country should have a plan.Web Link


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 10:13 am

Back to the diabetes/brain damage canard, Sharon?

AS your link states:

"To be clear, Sotomayor's condition has no bearing on her current judicial fitness."

So why bring it up? Why should our country have a plan specifically targeted towards her?


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 11:18 am

RS, again ( I have this copy and pasted now) ..try reading what I wrote. What you linked me to was an amendment to the Destim bill..I said with the EXCEPTION of the Destim bill ( otherwise known by the Orwellian name "American Reinvestmment and Recovery Act" or some such junk name).
I repeat...they can call themselves Repubs all they want, but if they vote with the Dems on virtually every bill and against their part leadership, as weak as it is, they are not Repubs. They are whatever Powell is.

Back to Sotomayor: I don't care about her health. I care about her view of justice, her job, racism, sexism, and constitution. She and I do not agree on one single thing, and I think she will do a bad job as Justice.

Doesn't matter though, she will get the nomination one way or another because Repubs lost their ability to stand up for what is right in 2006. They took the wrong message home, thinking they lost ground because they were "too right"',,..not realizing they lost ground because they were spending like drunks, and not standing up for anything else conservatives believe in.

Oh well..retreat to my little island and watch from a distance. Have already started laughing with a great deal of schadenfreude at the ever increasing suffering in the nation as a result of what most Americans voted in, and laughing because those who are sufferinng the most economic fall out are the very one who voted in this Admin's ideology. With Sotomayor, I will LMAO when her decisions come down erratic, and the results hurt the very people she THINKS she is trying to help.

For example, if she had her way, the exam that the Firefighters took, spending thousands of dollars and hours in some cases, to study for,..then passing..to get promoted in the firefighting dept ..would get tossed because no blacks passed.

So, think about it a minute..You are a firefighter, cop, teacher, anyone who has to take public exams in an area to get hired into a County or City. Where do you move to if you suddenly find that you only get promoted if a representative number of black people in your area also get promoted?

Think about it. What will happen to the integrated society we have, as there is flight to "white" areas where the playing field is equal again?

We are walking steadily back in time.



Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 11:40 am

Perspective:

How about these:

Web Link

Web Link


"For example, if she had her way, the exam that the Firefighters took, spending thousands of dollars and hours in some cases, to study for,..then passing..to get promoted in the firefighting dept ..would get tossed because no blacks passed."

Wasn't the ruling on whether the city had the right to throw out the exam, as opposed to how you put it? I think if you read up on the real case and forget about the rhetoric that Perspective/Sharon put forward, you will see that the issue is not a black and white one (excuse the pun).

I love it how white people get apoplectic when they even suspect they may be being discriminated against, yet have no problem when white people where in charge


Posted by sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 12:20 pm


"I love it how white people get apoplectic when they even suspect they may be being discriminated against, yet have no problem when white people where in charge"--- quote from RS

The above is a very strange and disturbing statement.

Something you might hear from a rabid racist, I thought all that went out with the "Black Panthers" and the "Weathermen" in the 60s

But thanks for confirming my suspicions about the underlying motivation and agenda and making it clear for all to see and read.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 12:31 pm



Feel free Sharon to spin my comments any way you want--facts have never been your strong suit.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 12:50 pm

BTW, Sharon, what do you find strange and disturbing about the statement?


Posted by Sandra, a resident of Stanford
on Jun 1, 2009 at 1:01 pm


"I love it how white people get apoplectic when they even suspect they may be being discriminated against, yet have no problem when white people where in charge"--- quote from RS


What a truly ugly statement, hard to believe someone in Palo Alto would make it in private, let alone public.
it is the sort of rhetoric you heard in Zimbabwe before the slaughter and disposesion of White farmers-----leading infact to the collapse of one of the worlds most productive food areas.

We are definately going to have a conversation about race /RAZA and it is going to be about reverse discrimination.
Not the theme the identity activists expected.

This may well save the Republican Party.

When White men, their wives,sisters and decent friends of all ethnicity see and hear what is REALLY going on with these activists there will be a massive backlash again these reverse discrimination racist thugs and activists.


Viva La Raza------ Good luck with that.

The whole conversation has been reframed in a few days.
Now we will see the backlash


Posted by Sidney, a resident of Portola Valley
on Jun 1, 2009 at 1:18 pm

The Real Sharon is absolutely correct in his assessment. It seems that these days if you dare to offer an opinion that certain right-wing caucasians do not like, you are subjected to a verbal attack. What is in vogue now is to call those people "racist". Ms Sotomayor has been subjected to this form of attack and now to a lesser extent ,The Real Sharon
the comments by Sharon and Sandra offer no substance nor do they state a reason why they find The Real Sharon's comments to be "strange", "disturbing" and "ugly".
They then introduce Zombabwe as a red herring and they then further label those people as "reverse discrimination racist thugs and activists".
I think if Sharon and Sandra have a problem with the Real Sharon's comment, then they should state what that problem is instead of engaging in name-calling and postings that try to inflame passion rather than address the issue at hand.


Posted by Sandra, a resident of Stanford
on Jun 1, 2009 at 1:28 pm



The issue at hand is reverse discrimation and grievence politics.
It is very dangerous and has real effect on justice, OJ Simpson got off a double homicide as a direct result of such rhetoric.
The people in Rwanda were saying the same sorts of things before 1.5M were hacked to death.
reverse discrimation and grievence politics is a lethal virus that spreads and actually kills.
I am truly horrified to see its vectors in Palo Alto, I thought we believed in better than that.
Once the virus is out you have to isolate it quickly and firmly, denial nor politeness will purge it. It spreads insidiously


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 1:34 pm

"The issue at hand is reverse discrimation and grievence politics."

I would have though the issue would be discrimination, period.

"OJ Simpson got off a double homicide as a direct result of such rhetoric."

No, O.J. got off because the prosecutors failed to prove, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that he was guilty.

"The people in Rwanda were saying the same sorts of things before 1.5M were hacked to death."
I think you need to read up on what went on in Rwanda. Obviously you feel that by saying that 1.5M people were killed because of "reverse discrimation and grievence politics." makes it a fact. Shame on you for using the people massacred in Rwanda as a platform for your twisted ideas.

"Once the virus is out you have to isolate it quickly and firmly, denial nor politeness will purge it. It spreads insidiously"

Quite the hysterical comment Sandra/Sharon. Do you have any FACTS to actually back it up? I doubt it.


Posted by Sandra, a resident of Stanford
on Jun 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm


In the OJ trial OJ lawyers made a direct appeal to the jury base on grievence and reverse discrimination.The same with the LA riots
The events in Zimbabwe were all provoked by grievence politics and reverse discrimination. Compare how South Africa deal with virus through truth commissions and of all thing, rugby football.
The slaughter in Rwanda was inflamed by grievence politics and calls for reverse discrimination on Hutu and Tutsi radio stations.

These are the facts.If you know history you know the results of the virus getting out


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 1:48 pm

Well, Sandra/Sharon, it is very simple, according to you everything can be blamed on "grievance politics and reverse discrimination". Of course you are comparing apples, oranges, pears and grapes and then coming up with the same ill-defined reason--"grievance politics and reverse discrimination". You compare in Zimbabwe, Rwanda and South Africa--the problem--"grievance politics and reverse discrimination". The OJ verdict--"grievance politics and reverse discrimination". Anything else?
How simple everything really is, when it you look at it through your eyes.


Posted by Sandra, a resident of Stanford
on Jun 1, 2009 at 2:03 pm


Well the big examples of the the virus of grievance politics and reverse discrimination are of course in the Soviet Union.
Robert Conquest at Stanford/Hoover has written in detail about these effects.
Around 70+ million people where killed and starved to death in the 30s based upon the rhetoric of grievance and reverse discrimination.
Then more recently you have the Killing Field in Cambodia, any one with an education or wearing glasses, presumed to be educated and priveledged under the old regime was slaughtered.
This is not to mention Mao, the French Revolution and other such viral plagues based upon exactly the same rhetoric.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 2:11 pm

You see, Sharon/Sandra, it is like I said above everything--every massacre, every injustice, every slaughter--can be blamed on "grievance politics and reverse discrimination".

You really have no idea what brought about the various cases you mention (i.e. you have no clue whatsoever about the khmer rouge, what their goals where and the nature of the slaughter). But you have latched on to a cute phrase, so you might as well beat it to death with a stick
You seem to be at a loss as to what "discrimination" and "reverse discrimination" really is, but you might as well beat that "cute phrase" to death with a stick


Posted by Sandra, a resident of Stanford
on Jun 1, 2009 at 2:16 pm



The point I made a bout South Africa is that Mandella stampted out the rhetoric of grievance and reverse discrimination.

He could have inflamed it, as many others have, but he did not he did exactly the opposite, and saved South Africa

the result was very different from that in Zimbabwe, which could have been prosperous like South Africa, but instead was destroyed-- they now have to import food aid and are sellin off all their natural sesorces to China in a fire sale-- pity but that is the effect of the virus if you do not stop it but instead inflame it


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 3:58 pm



Great analysis Sandra, are you an academic?.
I am looking for Conquests books you cited on Amazon.
Western Civilization and American Civilization its, apex, has been about property rights, free trade, democracy, objective justice and the scientific method.
The foundation is Judeo/Christian values of compassion, community and aspiration to higher values and common goals.
Together with a balance of Faith and Reason and a separation between church and state and freedom of faith.
The politics of grievance and reverse discrimination threatens to destroy all this as Hayek proved in The Road to SerfdomWeb Link
Your analysis shows what we are up against. It is not the first time we have faced this challenge to our civilization, what is different now is that we have fifth columnists in our very towns and communities, indeed on this blog.
I am glad that it has come to a head and we can see it for what it is.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 6:57 pm



Obama has implicitly conceded that what she said in the Latina Lecture was out of bounds.

If it can be established that she said it elsewhere it will demonstrate the dishonesty of the misspoke defense and the out-of-the-mainstream nature of her views.

Yes she did, many times, video comimg


Posted by PointOfView, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 1, 2009 at 9:47 pm

Is the "latina" statement really taken out of context? In what context was it given or intended?

Isn't the context that it is essential to experience the life of a minority in order to make the right decisions on the Supreme Court? That a Latina is therefore better suited than a white man as a justice?

The only context I've seen proposed here is that the current justices are racially prejudiced, so we need someone racially prejudiced the other way to balance it out. This context doesn't change the meaning of the offending statement to a better meaning.

We need to get beyond racial prejudice, not escalate it to the point where identity politics rules the Supreme Court.

Yes, a Supreme Court judge needs to look beyond their own self interests. Is the argument that neither a Latina nor a white man can do it, so we need a Latina on the Court to represent the interests outside those of the current and past Courts?


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 2, 2009 at 8:35 am

"Your analysis shows what we are up against. It is not the first time we have faced this challenge to our civilization, what is different now is that we have fifth columnists in our very towns and communities, indeed on this blog."

Quite the comment, Sharon. So people that disagree with you and support Sotomayor are "fifth columnists" now?
I find that comment strange, disturbing and ugly for it's connotations that if you do not agree with certain people you are against our country. Quite a sweeping statement, but not surprising considering the source


"If it can be established that she said it elsewhere it will demonstrate the dishonesty of the misspoke defense and the out-of-the-mainstream nature of her views.
Yes she did, many times, video comimg"

Well, if she did many times and you have video of it, why haven't you posted it yet?


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 2, 2009 at 9:37 am



She's not a racist.
It's an obvious truth that "wise Latinas" make better decisions than white men.
That's why we are all struggling South across the Sonora desert and across the Rio Grande,
trying to get into the land of milk and honey created by all those wise Latina decisions.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 2, 2009 at 9:47 am

Sharon continues her ridiculous and vile comments. Now she is denigrating the country of Mexico and it's inhabitants.
She has taken a statement, out of context, and has had a field day denigrating Sotomayor, Obama and anyone that dares to disagree with her position.
Has Sharon no shame?


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 2, 2009 at 10:04 am



You have to careful using terms like "denigrating" these days.
A Chicago politician recently took offense at the term and the offending politician had to resign.
You should also be care with such phrase as "there is a frosty nip in the air"
"there is a heavy dew on the grass" etc


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 2, 2009 at 1:00 pm

Since when are we limited to judging a judge ONLY on his or her historical cases, and not speeches? Hypocrisy at work, as usual.

Even judging JUST on historical cases, do we really want a Supreme Court nominee to make it who has had 60% of her decisions OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME COURT..nominated by a President who SAID in 2001 that he wants the Supreme Court to ..paraphrase..go further than the negative rights in the Constititution, and get into the realm of redistributing wealth..?

Think hard about this folks. This will be yet another way to "remake" America by throwing out the Constitution. Or, at the very least, by making empathetic and compassionate votes which ignore the Contstitution, as she has already done in at least 60% of the cases she tried ( probably more, frankly, but those are only the ones that went on to Appeal).

Remember, these same voices warned you what would happen with complete control by the furthest left Congress and President in our history, and so far we are absolutely correct. Are you happy with the results? Listen on this one.




Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 2, 2009 at 1:04 pm

MLK "Judge not on color of skin but content of character" continues to roll in his grave, poor thing.

Actually, I strongly recommend reading the entire speech. Recently did for the heck of it, and I am amazed at how much more there is to it than I remember. It was absolutely brilliant.

He was a hero to me. I remember watching his speech in awe as a very little 5 year old or so person. He and JFK transfixed me.

Pity the left has perverted the message.



Posted by PointOfView, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 2, 2009 at 2:01 pm

I don't care how many of her cases were overturned. It happens a lot; she could be right and the SC wrong; smart and good people make plenty of mistakes; she may be under- or over- weighting some technical or constitutional aspect of the case. That's what the SC is for.

I care what she thinks, and her decisions and speeches indicate that she has a deep conviction that we should judge a person by the color of their skin, or even that we must do so.

The attitude seems to be, "skin color represents a lot, deal with it."
I want to see the attitude, "skin color doesn't mean anything. Show me the case."




Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 2, 2009 at 10:17 pm

PointOfView,

Sotomayor's record shows that she has voted against the plaintiff in discrimination case appeals in the majority of cases. She's a pretty moderate justice. Don't really know why the Republicans have decided to get quite so worked up about her--unless they want to guarantee she'll turn leftward on the court.

I mean, honestly, as a liberal I wish she were more to the left. To me, ironically, she's kind of a boring pick.

And, frankly, I think the Sharons of the world would be happy with the diabetes since it makes it more likely that Sotomayor's tenure on the court will be shorter.

Nope, I just don't get why the GOP's blowing its wad on Sotomayor. The main thing it's going to do is make sure that Hispanics will continue to vote for the Democrats despite many more conservative elements of their culture that should fit with Republican values.

It seems really short-sighted.


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 2, 2009 at 10:25 pm

Just to follow up,

Here's a link to a discussion of Sotomayor's rulings on discrimination cases:

Web Link

I don't see a lot of decision-making based on race, do you?


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 3, 2009 at 7:34 am



Give Him Points for Honesty?

Harry Reid on Sotomayor:Web Link

"I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions.
I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them," the majority leader told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 3, 2009 at 8:57 am

Looks like Gingrich has backed off his remarks calling Sotomayor a racist:

Web Link



Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 3, 2009 at 9:47 am

From the link above a quote.."I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said last Wednesday.

To which I add..OR ELSE!

Can you imagine a Republican President Press Secretary saying such a patently speech squashing and govt threatening thing?

BTW, Gingrich is backing off on judging Sotomayor as a complete racist ( and I will add, sexist) ..but not at all on judging her words as racist.

So, I ask again the followingn question for those of you who think this is good..Imagine a White Male Republican saying that he thinks that Wise White Males, with the richness of their experiences, should be able to come to better judgements than Latinas?

"Just words..?""" or condemned to oblivion for eternity by Dems and our press as a racist and a sexist? I don't care which side of the line you come down on, just be consistent in applying your standards.

Me, I come down on the side of not wanting anyone who says such things in any elected or appointed govt position, esp one of 9 who determines law in my land and gets to do it for his or her whole life, regardless of competence once on the job..I don't care what color, gender or political party affiliation the person is, the principle of the matter appalls me.


Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 3, 2009 at 9:54 am

"To which I add..OR ELSE!
Can you imagine a Republican President Press Secretary saying such a patently speech squashing and govt threatening thing?"

Great that Persepctive can now read minds and knows exactly what Gibbs meant. Didn't we hear similar things after 9/11 with regard to people who objected to the government actions?

"Imagine a White Male Republican saying that he thinks that Wise White Males, with the richness of their experiences, should be able to come to better judgements than Latinas?"

Hasn't that been the unspoken belief held by many like Perspective, that old white men know what is best?

"esp one of 9 who determines law in my land "

Didn't Perspective in other threads mock the Supreme Court--now you are saying you respect them?


Posted by She said it several times, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 5, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Web Link

Apparently, in spite of Obama assuring America that he is sure Sotomayor would have restated the now famous racist/sexist statement if given a chance, Sotomayor repeated similar statements at least several times over the next few years.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Handmade truffle shop now open in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 2,329 views

Why is doing nothing so difficult?
By Sally Torbey | 7 comments | 1,066 views

Breastfeeding Tips
By Jessica T | 4 comments | 874 views

Weekly Update
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 726 views

Call it a novel: Dirty Love by Andre Dubus III
By Nick Taylor | 1 comment | 252 views