March 11, 2014 |
59° Fair with Haze
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Hopefully not the BLATANT racist his last nominee is!!
Blatant racist? Oh my god, I think my eyes just got stuck in the back of my head!
Okay, let's break down Sotomayor's "wise latina" line: "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."
Of course, it was said within a greater context, but even ignoring that context, let's look at the sentence. Stated by someone who most would agree is indeed "a wise Latina woman," I can see why she would "hope" that she reaches better conclusions. Wise people should hope they reach better conclusions, otherwise, what is the point of being wise? Doesn't mean it is necessarily true in all cases, but she can hope it is true. Nothing racist about that.
"... reach a better conclusion than a white male ..." Notice she didn't say a "wise" white male. I would hope a "wise" person of any race reaches a better conclusion than an average person of any other race, wouldn't you? So, nothing racist about that, either. The key word is "wise," not "white," but I can see why you focus on one "w" word and not the other.
"... who hasn't lived that life." Here she is addressing experience. Shouldn't a wise person with experience reach a better conclusion than an average person lacking such experience? Again, no racism.
So, if one line makes someone a "blatant" racist when that person didn't actually make a racist statement, well then, I guess you must walk on water.
Ok, beatrice -- I'll let you be completely dismissive of all of that...if you want to turn a blind eye, there's not a lot I can do.
This woman remains active in a group called "National Council of La Raza" I've checked with several people who are fluent in spanish, and the english translation of "La Raza" is "The Race".
Now hold on to your seat beatrice, this will probably be hard for you to understand; if Bush or even Reagan had nominated a white, completely right-wing conservative, BUT they were a mere member of a group that called themselves "The Race" (notice I didn't even say that they were active in said racist group) I'd be just as opposed to that nominee as I was to Baraks last mistake.
David Duke has no place in our government, just as democrat Robert Byrd who was a member of the KKK. I am completely blind to party lines when it comes to racism. Are you?
I certainly try to be blind to racism when it comes to party lines. However, what you just described is the system, not the individual. Also, there is history to consider and a reason for groups like La Raza and the NAACP to be formed in the first place. It is strength through solidariy. White groups formed along the same lines are not about building one another up, but to tear down others. See the difference?
Tell 'em bea!! How is being proud of one's own race and heritage qualify as being racist? Mr. right wing is a blatant idiot!
When you elevate yourself above other races; when you use it to discredit other races.
I don't have a problem with a person who says "I"m proud to be white" but if they follow that with "because we're better than blacks" I have a problem.
...and guess what? If you say you don't like or trust Barak Obama because he's black (half black) I've got a big problem with you!!
The assumption in the quote is that white men who haven't had the same experience as Latina women aren't "wise".
That's why it's racist.
Turn it around - I would hope that a wise white man would make better decisions than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
How does that sound?
This is reaching for an assumption not there.
I've changed my mind; I'm not going to stand by and let you be dismissive, because I have a feeling if a white male (especially republican) nominee were to say:
"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a latina/black woman who hasn't lived that life." (How disgustingly racist is that?!)
You and I should both have a major problem with that. It is a separate form of racism when a 'minority' can get away with saying what would draw strong criticism if someone from the 'majority' race had said it.
If you truly feel that way about her quote...sorry...but you yourself are a racist beatrice. (I just call 'em as I see 'em.) A person should be judged by their character, not the color of their skin/ethnicity. A very wise civil rights leader once uttered those words.
I wasn't being dismissive, I was being argumentative. It is one thing to be just accepted (white men in our society) and having to fight for equal acceptance (women, people of color). Of course, you wouldn't have a clue of this, now would you?
I think this president is great. And this second justice he has selected looks solid just like the first one. These are people who will bring conversation and openness to new ideas back to the Court. Hopefully these are the starting pieces for what will eventually be a Court that actually contemplates arguments and considers a broad spectrum of views. Viva Sotomayor! Viva Kagan! Viva the next dude as well! Viva President Obama. Yes We Can. Yes We Can. "Recover the earth from fools."
Being rather assumptive there, aren't we? I am as a matter of fact considered part of a "minority" group. To make assumptions (like yours) is the bedrock of racism beatrice.
Wise latinas with their rich lives reaching better conclusions than dumb old white men is not racism. Its called wise latinaism. I support our new wise latina overlords. May their life richness be upon all of us ignorant white folk without rich life experience.
Were you his last nominee?
Another entry from ival in the "limp retort derby".
nah....lame, with a void of any imagination/creativity.
Will you suck it up when the right wing of the senate filibusters her appointment? There's 40 of them there.
Elections have consequences. I support justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, but since Mr. Obama won the presidency and his party controls the US Senate, Ms. Kagan will be the new justice. I hope the next justice is appointed by a Republican president, but that race has yet to be run.
Well said! I supported Bush's picks of Roberts and Alito, not because I like their ideas, but because Bush is a conservative voted for by the people. He owed it to the conservatives who elected him to pick conservative judges. Now, we get the balance.
one man one woman that's all i'm going to say.
so brother-sister lovin is in, but woman on woman is out? whatever floats your boat.
You should also add, "two legs good, four legs bad".
Just another example of a black president eroding the white mans influence in America by nominating a woman. When will the left learn that their bread is buttered by the right? When will minorities and women accept the manifest destiny of white males to rule over all others? Must us white men have to completely destroy the world before we can rule with unquestioned authority? Oh, woe is me! But, I guess this beats an alien invasion from Mars, or is it Venus?
Cats are better than dogs.
I just realized what the white-wingers, er uh right-wingers are afraid of. It's not the black President, it's the door he opens, it's not the "wise Latina" Supreme Court Justice, it's the door she opens.They are afraid of open doors which might lead to open minds. FREE YOUR MIND, THE REST WILL FOLLOW!!
We are all hiding under the bed right now. Maybe when we have rich life experiences we can quote meaningless lyrics from goofy pop songs and think we are coolio.
"by nominating a woman" and other comments to which I reply, "a woman who has NEVER sat as a JUDGE." This is the Supreme Court for pete's sake! Do you not think some experience as a JUDGE wouldn't be a reasonable expectation?!
Judge James Gray for the Supreme Court!!
Have any other judges sitting on the bench proved that experience as a judge has been benefit to the USA?
How does that help when judges exercise their political views from the bench?
Spoken like a true oskaloser.
the majority of supreme court justices have had no prior experience as judges...
and over a dozen of those justices without experience as judges became chief justices...
it has been about 40 years since a non-judge has been appointed...
maybe not such a bad idea to move away from that... and get back to the more diverse backgrounds...
I vote no. But then again I don't support anything obama does so the judge thing was a foregone conclusion.
It's too bad. I was kind of warming up to him until all the chicanery and fraud behind his health insurance mandate program,
Too bad you don't get a vote on this.
I'm proud enough.
One of the mindsets this country needs to get over if we're going to be globally competitive is this notion that theorizing is equal to doing. Here is a person who has no experience on the bench. She has never been a judge, hence has never put her theories to real-world practice. Now we're going to say that's okay because she has spent years teaching other people how to be judges. Coaching is NOT the same as playing. Coaches and teachers and law school deans have a different career path than players and CEOs and Supreme Court judges. Her career path has not appropriately prepared her to be the best person to fill this role. Experience counts. This is a well-proven fact, whether we like to believe it or not.
Kagan has not only taught law, she has practiced law at a far higher level than most lawyers can ever hope to...
there are no constitutional requirements for being a supreme court judge...
an appointee need not even be a lawyer or trained in law...
there have been a total of 111 justices with 17 of them being chief justices…
of those 17, 14 had not been judges before their appointments…
here is a list of supreme court chief justices who had never sat on the bench before they became supreme court cheif justices... it is the vast majority...
John Marshall.......................Secretary of State
Roger Taney.........................Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Attorney General
Salmon Chase......................Secretary of the Treasury, Governor
William Howard Taft..............U.S. President
Charles Hughes....................Secretary of State
Harlan Stone........................Attorney General
Fred Vinson..........................Secretary of the Treasury
The President elected by a vast majority of the voters you mean.
I don't think anyone can call 53% a "vast majority." Heck, G.W. Bush even pulled 51% of the popular vote in 2004.
Danimal, I believe that both of Bushes victories were called mandates by the righties. I believe he said he had "political capital to spend", so yes, under those types of definitions, Obama was elected with a "vast majority".
Why dont you change the question to....Do you as a liberal Lawrencian blindly support everything Obama says and does?
God is helping us Tom he replaced your Bushy with the saviour to the world Barack Hussein Obama ( and he is not white).
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
"I've been in the Bible every day since I've been the president." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Nov. 12, 2008
"Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." --George W. Bush, in parting words to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at his final G-8 Summit, punching the air and grinning widely as the two leaders looked on in shock, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008
"Amigo! Amigo!" --George W. Bush, calling out to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Spanish at the G-8 Summit, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008
"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
Be proud of your boy!!!
Unless something we don't know comes up, I think Obama made another excellent decision.
What a difference it makes to have a very intelligent and educated President who makes good decisions.
I am concerned her qualifications for the position are no better than Harriet Miers.
She does not even meet the requirements she stated were necessary for a Supreme Court Justice.
her qualifications for the job are no better than obomas qualifications for his job.
were screwed if this kind of thing continues.
What scares me the most is that she looks like Mike Meyers in a woman suit. I did not know Canadians were allowed on the Supreme Court.
I could be completely insane, but there's something that I like about Kagan. She doesn't have any judicial experience, but she was the dean of Havard Law for 6 years. During that time she managed to unite the highly contentious faculty of liberals and conservatives at that institution more effectively than anyone else in recent memory.
At the same time, I don't like that she's another Ivy Leaguer. The recent meltdown of our economy and the total failure of our governmental regulatory systems should show us that we just can't blindly trust people with an Ivy League education like we have in the past. I think that Warren Buffett is right, our next generation of leaders aren't going to be the next generation of legacies from some Ivy League school, but people of more grit and humble roots that went to public schools and universities.
Oskie, your comments are pure magic!
In other news:
“Today, I listened again to Elena Kagan’s oral argument in Citizens United v. FEC. I was just trying to get a feeling for the quality of her mind, and I was struck by how badly it went. I dug up a Salon article from a few weeks ago: "On the Supreme Court, not a lot of respect for Elena Kagan: The solicitor general's appearances before the high court have been marked by unusually brusque treatment" by James Doty. He looked to her 5 oral arguments as SG as evidence of "whether Kagan would be an effective liberal on the court," what sort of power she might have over Anthony Kennedy, whose vote tends to determine outcomes as he shifts from the Court's liberal 4 to the conservative 4, and whether she could provide an effective counterweight to the Court's strong conservatives.
When [Citizens United] was argued in September 2009, a modest defeat was still well within the realm of possibility, provided that Kagan could secure Kennedy’s vote. But she seemed oddly unconcerned with addressing his qualms. At one point, Kennedy asked Kagan to address a particular issue, which she had labeled "point two" in her opening remarks:
Kennedy: In the course of this argument, have you covered point two? ... I would like to know what it is.
Kagan: I very much appreciate that, Justice Kennedy. I think I did cover point two.
She quickly moved on. Four months later, Kennedy wrote a 5-4 opinion that handed Kagan and the U.S. government a sweeping defeat…”
If she disagrees with the government views on an issue and consequently fails to argue her best in representing it, what does that say about her ethics?
I don't want a person who would commit legal malpactice sitting as a judge on any court.
This question is far too premature. She hasn't been through the confimration process or ABA review.
This would be a decent question in another month or so.
Right now all it could generate are partisan responses from the usual crowd on both sides. See above. Kind of boring. I get it, left or right, we're all either morons or racists. Every last one of them...or us.
This isn't the first time you've been called premature, I am sure!
She has said that the confirmation process for a SCOTUS justice is 'vapid' and that nominees should not be able to duck questions about their views on controversial issues. Good for her.
First question she should be asked:
"Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can require a citizen to purchase health care?"
We should expect her to answer.
I believe it is directly under the line about Social Security, the GI Bill, Medicare, Medicaid ...
The justification for these large federal government programs is vague at best.
It generally rests on some sort of "interstate commerce" reasoning, however, that's not very clear or satisfying to me.
I'm pretty sure when they gave the federal government the power to "regulate interstate commerce", they didn't have programs like this in mind.
This is just another example of Chicago style politics. Forget any previous experience, she's politically correct. Sigh... at least she's better than Hillary.
We will have 6 Harvard grads, 3 Yale grads on the SCOTUS.
Aside from her stupid choices regarding Harvard decision to ban military recruiters from the campus, I don't know enough about her to have an informed opinion yet. How about lets see what comes out in weeks ahead before we decide.
“Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy on Tuesday grew visibly angry when asked by The Daily Caller whether he planned to insist that the White House turn over writings by Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan from her time working in the Clinton White House.
“I haven’t even thought about what I’m going to do,” Leahy said at first.
When pressed about the importance of mining memos from her four years at the White House to gain insight into her thinking on judicial philosophy and policy matters, Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, became testy.
“I’ll tell you what. I think what is important is for you to let me run the hearing and we’ll let you know,” he said.
“I think it would be grandstanding on my part to try to tell you what I want to do before I even talk to the nominee,” Leahy added.
When questioned a third time, Leahy shot back: “Maybe you ought to chair the hearing,” before turning and walking into an elevator.
Kagan worked in the White House counsel’s office from 1995 to 1997 and was deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council from 1997 to 1999. Her memos are housed in Arkansas at the Clinton Library.
The White House has said they will not simply hand over Kagan’s writings.
In 2005, when President George W. Bush, a Republican, nominated John Roberts to be chief justice, a Republican Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, threatened to subpoena Roberts’s writings from his time at the White House under President Ronald Reagan as well as from his time at the Justice Department.
The Bush White House produced the memos.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/11/judiciary-committee-chairman-leahy-blows-off-questions-about-clinton-era-kagan-memos/#ixzz0nizdusmN
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Wheat State Pizza
2 Medium Pizzas, each with 2-toppings, both just $14.99.
· Every day: Get a 10" 1-Topping Pizza and ...
Henry T's Bar & Grill
Nacho pizza with a salad.
· From now through St. Patty's Day: Guinness Beef ...
Jayhawker signature taco dish, $7.95-$9.95
· All Jayhawker specials are prepared from fresh ingredients ...
23rd Street Brewery
Hazelnut encrusted goat cheese salad or Brewery chicken soft tacos
Famous Dave's Bar-B-Que
· $5 off a Feast for Two or $10 ...
Jja Jang Myeon (Korean Black Bean Spaghetti)
· Pork, black bean purée, potatos, onions, carrots, with ...
Bird Dog Bar
1/2 price burgers!
Wayne & Larry's Sports Bar & Grill
· Your choice of crispy or grilled chicken breast ...
Two 10" pizzas with 2 toppings each
· plus 2 drinks. Everyday special: Slice/Salad/Drink, just $6.35
Tuesday Lunch Special
· Slab-O-Palooza! $10.99 St. Louis Ribs All Day. (Dine ...
Cosmos Indian Store & Cafe
· Roasted marinated meat of your choice or panner ...