sundancekid (anonymous) says...

The comment at issue from Judge Sotomayor, "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.”

She has a valid point. It's called "empathy," which we need more of upon the judicial bench. Unless you are part of a minority group, you will never be able to understand the struggles faced by the oppressed.

This reminds me of a t-shirt I saw in advance of the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election. The faces of all forty-three presidents from Washington to Bush II were represented, and then the quote, "I have an idea. Let's elect another old, white rich guy."

June 2, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I guess color blindness doesn't really exist.

June 2, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

madpoet (anonymous) says...

I would like to read the whole speech,not just hear a quote out of context. And yes, there is a double standard. I have been appalled by the names some minority men call each other. If I used any of those words as a white person, I would be immediately attacked. Racial slurs are bad no matter whose mouth it comes from. And I don't see her comment as rascist.

June 2, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

So should our Supreme Court should be made up of all minorities, with no white males on it? Because in all cases we can find someone with more empathy.

I'm just curious.... were all of our presidents old? Were all of them rich? Since that's all we've (apparently) elected up till now....... has America risen to be the greatest country the world has ever seen because of them...... or in spite of them?

Replace "white male" with "black male" or "jew" or any other word you care to put, and see how it reads then. Shouldn't be any different, right? Or is discrimination only a one-way street? I can see where a minority might just let bias creep in just as much as any other skin color might. Bias is bias, regardless of which direction it is aimed. I wonder.....if Bush nominated someone that made a remark like that would they be treated completely different?

I prefer the words of Martin Luther King, where he wished for a nation where his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Looks like that's not the case of our newest nominee.

But then again that apparently makes me the minority these days. Who'da thunk it.

June 2, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

deluvly1 (anonymous) says...

"She has a valid point. It's called "empathy," which we need more of upon the judicial bench..."

Puh-Lease! We need someone with an unerring knowledge and understanding of the law based on the Constitution of the United States of America, PERIOD.

Go get your warm and fuzzy on somewhere else. The document is alive and has been serving us well for over 200 years, unique in all the world. This is change I cannot accept, let alone believe in. I hope I'm never tried for anything based on someone’s “empathy.” What unmitigated hogwash from someone who apparently has no idea what a judge’s job---let alone the job of a Supreme Court justice---is about! It makes me fear for the nation.

June 2, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

The simple use of the word "white" made it racist. Then she added "male" which put a gender bias on it too. Why couldn't she just keep race and gender out of it? Sometimes people need to stop having diarrhea of the mouth...

June 2, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

madpoet (anonymous) says...

Mentioning someone's race isn't racism. Saying they are inferior is, so I guess you could say that was a racist comment. I've not read the whole speech so don't know the context. I will give her the benefit of the doubt for now and assume she was just pointing out that different people with different backgrounds approach topics differently. That was how I took it but that may be because that would be how I would be saying it. We all have filters we use to view the world so no two people will see the same thing the same way.

June 2, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...

If someone was offended by Sotomayor's comments they need to either get psychiatric help, become a Scientologist, buy some cheese, or at least find out what the heck that crazy chick was talkin'-'bout.

Come on now, anybody who'd find them words offensive wouldn't a stood a chance in the world the majority of Us grew up in.

It is funny though--in a Bizarro World sort of way--that rich white men are most offended by Sotomayor's remarks; especially given that it was rich white men that saddled all nonwhite Americans with the baggage necessary to form such opinions. And let's not delude ourselves into thinking rich white folks don't believe they deserve their finery because they are smarter and/or work harder than the rest of us.

Sooner or later most rich folks come to believe they are somehow more deserving or blessed by God as Rush, Sean, BillO and the rest, assure Us over and over and over again. As if God chose them an' only them to impart common sense to the ignorant masses; however, they are delusional egomaniacal sociopaths and since it does no good to slap piss out of the mentally ill we should all just ignore their spew. Besides in their worlds it certainly appears to be true. Nonetheless, the idea that any one of those peeps are capable of being offended is ludicrous.

MrC was shopping at our local Dillon's Store the other day and saw that they are again selling a package of 12 Kroger burger buns that are larger and slightly better quality than their regular 8 pack burger buns. They've sold them for years, but several months ago they just up and disappeared from the shelves. The package has changed but they are the same buns. Funny thing was that they slapped one of those tags on the shelf that says something like "LOOK! NEW ITEM!" The intent, one can assume, is to get the shopper's attention and let 'em know the 12 pack buns are back. Actually seems more logical to slap a tag up that says "LOOK! WHAT'S BACK!" But MrCmonkeeDo bets they don't have tags that say "LOOK! WHAT'S BACK!" because that would remind the consumer that the buns were taken away. They were removed from the shelves because of a corporate decision based on marketing strategies. In effect the Corporation decided MrC would no longer buy the buns He wanted and would make Do with the buns He didn't want. Seems to happen a lot to MrCmonkeeDo.

Life is so hard.

And much too short to bend ones self out of shape over buns.

Anyway it was all fine and dandy until they tried to fool yours truly with the fore mentioned tag. Now MrC is thinkin' them slick Corporate Bast...uh...Rascals think He's stupid.

Why He was genuinely offended!

Dang near didn't buy them buns.

June 3, 2009 at 12:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Weltha (anonymous) says...

MrC- I liked your post. Go to the Dolly Thrift Store. They have all kinds of buns (12 packs) and they are cheaper than Dillons and Wal-Mart.

June 3, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

As someone who apparently needs to either get psychiatric help, become a Scientologist, buy some cheese, I just discovered I didn't stand a chance growing up. But then again, I keep forgetting Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. And I also look around the world at countries where slavery is still practiced (Sudan, Niger, UAE, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Indonesia, among others, according to the stats at http://www.infoplease.com/spot/slaver...) and don't see alot of rich white men there.

Guess I spend too much time obsessed with buns.

June 3, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

rac⋅ism  /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm]
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.”
Meets the definition to me...mentioning someones race for any reason makes a statement racism. If you are not being racist, then you would not put a color or cultural identifier in comments you make.
I don't care about what she said, personally. However, my argument is this... If someone from a race can be offended by remarks indicating race, then so can ANY other race or races. It just seems that some people feel they own the right to be offended, which is simply not true. Anyone can be offended. Overall, I feel that too many people are offended by too many things. Freedom of speech is quickly dwindling because someone becomes offended. Get over yourselves! Pick and choose what to be offended about more wisely. Most of these offenses comes off the backs of bigger issues, so attack the bigger issues instead of crying over small hurt feelings.

June 3, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

It's obvious from these posts that MrCmonkeeDo likes big buns and he cannot lie..............

seriously though
Can we actually read the quote? "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.” She pointed out all the differences about herself which is fine but then she makes a blanket statement about all white males. As if we are all the same. She wasn't just talking about rich white men. She wasn't just talking about poor white men. She wasn't just talking about straight white men. etc. She was talking about ALL white males. Perhaps in context this statement doesn't paint all white males with such a broad brush but in the quote alone it certainly does. If she saw a quote from some lilly white cracker that said all Latinas were the same I'm pretty sure she would be atleast a little offended.

June 3, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...

open_eyes

Perhaps you could read the rest of the speech. Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/...

Please consider whom Sotomayor was addressing when she uttered those words that you find so offensive. Also please consider the context of the speech. Remember she ain't out there preachin' from the rooftops that Latino women are superior to white men; but once in a speech she gave almost a decade ago, she did say just that. She was explaining that she disagreed with a colleagues statement that men and women will decide judicially the same way.

She claimed then that she found it difficult to divorce herself from the influences of her upbringing when deciding cases and that it may not even be possible, but that she strove to do so. Even though her true hope was that because of her background, because of the oppressive baggage she'd been forced to carry, she might even be better at deciding some cases than a white man.

If you think white men don't believe they are better qualified to judge than white women of whatever race then perhaps you need to think about it a little more.

MrCmonkeeDo was born in 1960 right here in these flint hills. His own father and mother used the N word freely as did most of his peers from grade school through high school. There were jokes aplenty about that "lowly" race and one was looked upon suspiciously if they didn't laugh at them or offer up one of their own. Even nonwhite folks were expected to participate and did.

Later they became "Pollock" jokes when the N word finally fell out of favor.

Mexicans were ALWAYS referred to as "wet backs," "spics" or "greasers" but NEVER Americans. It wasn't just jokes either, sometimes it was sage advice that shall not be repeated hear. Remember that open_eyes? Remember the CRAP WE heaped on 'em? Well they shook it off, just as WE would demand and some of that CRAP slapped us right back in the face. BooFlippinHoo.

So go ahead and buy some cheese. Consider it a just desert of a Karmic surprise if it helps to sooth your ego.

As for your other point: In the land of the penniless the dime bearer is king.

To Observation: No that was not the point it was the crux.

June 3, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"Consider it a just desert" So now I guess, two wrongs do make a right?

June 3, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

MrC, I HAVE read the rest of the speech. And as you say yourself, "she did say just that".

My ego is no problem, I don't even have to refer to myself in the third person. As far as the crap "WE" heaped on them, speak for yourself and soothe your own guilt. Not EVERY white male in the world is as guilty as you would like to believe, and there are also quite a few non-whites out there who are quite the racists. Stereotyping works both ways.

I totally agree with what you have laid out as to our history, but at some point it needs to stop. If two wrongs make a right and everyone gets their just dessert, it will never end. (Just like the middle east). I don't deny that there are plenty of white men out there that believe they are better qualified to judge than white women. I just fervently hope that none of THOSE are sitting on our Supreme Court. THIS is what we are talking about, a Supreme Court justice, not Average Joe. And if you believe that all our white males currently sitting on the Supreme Court still carry this type of bias then perhaps YOU need to think about it a little more.

This is what Alito said during HIS confirmation hearings:

"Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position..... And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

And despite that, Alito was filibustered by Democrats. Did all the Dems at that time need psychiatric help & cheese?

We all use our past and experiences to shape and mold our current views and decisions. As we should. However, Alito didn't claim that he thought it made him better qualified than a white male. Just that it was experience to draw on that helped shape his views and decisions. If Alito had claimed it helped him better than a white male, I would have complained. Had Sotamayor stopped before claiming it made her better qualified than a white male, I would have no problem.

And I love cheese.

June 3, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

open_eyes
I could not agree more. I also love cheese.

June 3, 2009 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

madpoet (anonymous) says...

That's why they say judges "interpret the law" when they make rulings. No one is unbiased.

June 3, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Well, she should then interperet her own words. The definition of racism I gave earlier is a legal definition. To me when you look at the definition and then look at her statement it couldn't be any more clear that what she said is racist.
Like I said, some people need to stop having diarrhea of the mouth.

June 3, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...

"As far as the crap "WE" heaped on them, speak for yourself and soothe your own guilt. Not EVERY white male in the world is as guilty as you would like to believe, and there are also quite a few non-whites out there who are quite the racists. Stereotyping works both ways."

Hold it now, nobody said anything about EVERY white male in the world being guilty of anything nor would one be wise to suggest that Sotomayor is not capable of racist remarks or thoughts. If y'all want to jump all over her for sayin' it...well shoot fire that's the process man. If nothing else we'll see if she's got the metal for a lifetime appointment. And open_eyes, MrCmonkeeDo apologizes for inferring that you were from these hills and were around here in the 60's, 70's and 80's and the same goes to any others He might have offended.

But please don't try to convince any of Us that did grow up in these parts that you never laughed at or told off-color jokes if you lived around here way back then. You peeps that did grow up here know what MrC is sayin'. He ain't proud of it, to the contrary He's quite ashamed and yes probably soothes His guilt by imagining everybody grew up like that. But He knows that ain't REALLY true. Still that baggage of crap was carried by most of us and distributed freely. Some of of it was bound to get under our nails sooner or later; and you maybe can't see it, but We probably got a little on you as well.

Racism is so much more than the legal definition provided by giggles but it can be so much less too.

Ask yourself (if you grew up around here 30+ years ago) if you are a racist. MrC sure laughed at a lot of jokes back then; told a bunch too, but He grew up and put childish things away. So is it once a racist always a racist? That doesn't seem fair somehow; certainly it sells the human race short.

Sure if a white man said it about a Latino woman we'd have all crapped bricks today; but not if he'd said it 30 or 40+ yrs ago, not in these hills. In fact, we'd probably have turned it into a joke.

One would suppose that the real question is whether Sotomayor is a racist. If we decide she is a racist based on one comment from one speech given nearly a decade ago then there's little hope for any of us. Remember the speech was not about how Latina Women are better at making decisions than white men. That was an unfortunate aside that probably took all of five seconds to say. So far the only evidence presented that she is racist are a few seconds worth of relatively mild words...well sorry; that just ain't enough for this ol' monkee to bend hisself out of shape over. To be real honest MrCmonkeeDo has said way worse things than that in his lifetime and heard worse things than He ever said.

Do two wrongs make a right? Well of course not, but sometimes two wrongs can be just.

Besides who of us can say Sotomayor is wrong. There is the possibility her comment is true you know...and if she is right, is she a racist or a realist?

June 3, 2009 at 11:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I DID grow up around here, about your age, and I DID hear many of the things you refer to. And now I understand your point - yes, I laughed at times and am guilty of telling a few off-color jokes myself. And like you, I am ashamed, even though I never treated any of my friends of a different skin color than me any differently, nor said anything derogatory or even jokingly of that nature to their face. But guilty as charged. Its interesting though that I never really thought of myself as a racist, I was not raised that way - just "went along with the crowd" at times if a joke was being told, without really thinking anything about it at the time (young and foolish). Which is no excuse whatsoever.
What I am trying to say is that I certainly hope that who we have on the Supreme Court is somewhat a step above the Average Joe who may have grown up just like I (we) described. Whether they grew up without any trace of bias or have risen above it in maturity. But her statement did not say anything about being better qualified than "some" white males, which I am sure she (and lots of others) are. I'm sure I'm better qualified to be less of a racist than "some" Latino, black, or other minority males if that is the case. But she also did not say this during the indiscretion of her youth, but as an adult judge, and an attitude like that I would have hoped she would have risen above given her position.
That's the point - we're all better in some way or another than some others somewhere, no doubt, and worse in some ways than others. That's a given of life. But much as I would hope that our President & other highly elected officials represent the best of us, I would hope to the nth degree that our lifetime appointees to the highest court in the land would also be representative of those who have risen above the 2 wrongs make a right attitude, just or not, or that they are better than anyone else in general. A mark of the truly wise is that they never brag about their wisdom or claim to be superior.

Currently, I understand all too well, being in the "new" minority. I'm a white Christian male. And I use my experiences as such to shape my views and actions, but not to think of myself as better than any general segment of the population. And whether or not 2 wrongs may be "just", it doesn't really help the situation any. As President Obama stated in his speech today: "But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward." Maybe much of America can't rise to that aspiration, but I certainly hope at the very least our Supreme Court justices can.

June 4, 2009 at 7:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Excellent point, Mr. C, and using the experiences of my own salad days that took place two thousand miles away from the Flint Hills, she is a realist. Those experiences were, however, exactly the same. In my case, the slings and arrows were aimed at people like me, people of Portuguese heritage who were considered too stupid to do anything more than the most menial of jobs. Add being a woman to that and I wonder how we ever learned to keep our heads up. I remember the jabs, the pet names, the snide remarks, many of them cloaked in humor. When I arrived in Kansas in the mid 70's, I heard those same sort of remarks aimed at Black people and Mexicans. I never saw the humor, only the harm. My experiences allowed my vision to be sharper.

I'd rather have a realist on the bench.

June 4, 2009 at 7:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

So, would it be fair to say that the "richness of experiences" of a white male enables them to, in many instances, reach better conclusions than a Latino woman? Why not? Surely there are SOME cases where this would be......being a realist......right??????

I would also say that the shame I feel now has also allowed my vision to be "sharper"........ but not superior. Racism is racism is racism, no matter how you try to justify it, cloak it, sugarcoat it, or spin it. If you can't rise above it then how are you any better?
And I am am deeply saddened that apparently none of those experiences have enabled people to become any wiser. Apparently we're alot further from MLK's dream than I believed. I'd rather have Alito's realism - that it helps shape his views and decisions - than Sotamayors, that it makes her superior.

Again, the truly wisest ones among us never claim to be such. I'd rather have some humility in the position of a public servant than someone who feels their experiences have made them somehow superior to the majority.

June 4, 2009 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I guess what I'm being told here, is that, for instance, if I were to move to a country where I would be the minority, such as a country of mostly Portuguese heritage, and experienced racism, (don't try to tell me racism is solely a property of Caucasians, I've been around the world enough to know better) - then I would more often than not as a judge reach better conclusions than someone there of Portugese heritage. My decision making would be superior to theirs because of my experiences & the color of my skin. Ok, fair enough, I understand now.
So should every country get rid of every judge they have that is among the majority and replace them with someone of a minority in that country? Same goes for all the elected officials. After all, doesn't everyone want those who can make the best decisions in all seats of power? If the richness of experiences of a minority is always going to make them better qualified to make better decisions, then don't we want ALL our judges/officials to have that kind of background and attitude? What is wrong with that logic? It's realism, right?

June 4, 2009 at 8:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Perhaps Portugal would be better served with a Supreme Court comprised of all white males then....... nah......

The point I am trying to make is: I'm all for diversity and a wealth of different experiences and viewpoints on the bench. Just as I am for neither Republican or Democrat having super majorities in all branches of government. Women and minorities of course bring experiences and points of view that cannot be in all cases matched by one who is not in their shoes. And we NEED that diversity and views. I certainly don't want any one view to dominate the court any more than I do the government. The best decisions are reached by a consensus of a wealth of viewpoints and experiences.

My problem is claiming that more often than not it allows you to make superior decisions. Not just here and there. "More often than not than a white male". You can spin it all you want but that was a statement made by an adult judge in her 40's. Even I had learned the wisdom of humility by then.

June 4, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Wow, you have a real problem with this, don't you. Oh, and btw, my early life experiences of being looked down upon as a Portuguese woman didn't occur in Portugal as you seem to believe. They occurred in one of our own states -- Hawaii. In my lifetime, it has always been either a territory of the U.S. or a state. Gee, I wonder if all this hullabaloo about double standards would be taking place had Sotomayor been a Republican.

June 4, 2009 at 8:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Yes, I do have a real problem with racism and stereotyping. I've been on the receiving end of stereotypes, and although it may give me some perspectives others may not, I don't feel it makes me superior.
I never meant nor did I imagine that your experiences took place in Portugal. I merely used that as an example since you mentioned Portugese descent. You've already stated here many times where you grew up, and I was well aware of that.
And I've already stated had Alito said it made his views superior, I would have complained. And, in answer to your last question, yes, there would have been and HAVE been the same double standards. Alito, despite saying his experiences as a minority immigrant help shape his views and perceptions...............was filibustered by the Democrats. I wonder if all the hullabaloo then would have happened had Alito been a Democrat?????? Given the makeup of our current congress I doubt if Sotamayor was a Republican, she would have stood a chance. Even if her views were exactly the same. Remember Bush had a pick that got shot down too.......

June 4, 2009 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Create, look again at what he said. He states that you probably did experience racism here in the states. What you seem to miss is that he said if he were to go to Portugal, he would probably experience racism there as you did here.

June 4, 2009 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"Gee, I wonder if all this hullabaloo about double standards would be taking place had Sotomayor been a Republican."
I try to be funny on these forums from time to time............. well lets face it more often than not I'm more funny than other posters, probably because of the poorness of my extremities or something like that. But create takes the cake with this statement. LOLOLOLOLOL Would a Republican get criticized for saying something? Let me think a moment............................. Uh yeah! I seem to remember a few times. Usually I'm the one that likes to drop a funny bomb in serious conversations to lighten the mode but I like to see others do it too. Good one create.

June 4, 2009 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I know, ain't it funny at times? My current gut-busting laugher is when Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia Ms. Clinton said "President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil. How pathetic.".

But the Obama team says that one of their top priorities on the agenda during his trip over there is to discuss persuading OPEC to drop the sky-high oil prices.

Yes, Hillary. Pathetic, indeed. Good one. Now that you're Secretary of State it's all different, isn't it?

Ok, there's my funny bomb for today :) Sorry to have changed the subject, just wanted to show the poorness of my extremeties too, seriouslyfolks - LOL

June 4, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

open_eyes
That is a great example of one of two things. It is either a double standard on Hillary/Democrats side or it is evidence of the miraculous powers of our current President. Is something that was "pathetic" only a few years ago now miraculously not? Am I starting to believe? Can I repent of my conservative ways and board the "progressive" train? Do these shoes match this shirt? Does it really matter? So much to ponder and so little time. Perhaps if I quit my job and got on the welfare I'd have more time to think. No............ I'll just keep workin' because there are millions on welfare and bankers and auto makers etc. that depend on me

June 4, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I think its sortof a combination of both, seriouslyfolks. Hypocrisy I Can Believe In!!! LOL

Todays quiz: Which way did then-Senator Obama vote on both of Bush's since-confirmed Supreme Court nominee's, Alito & Roberts?

Quiz results:

25% said "NO" (Correct)

75% said "Who cares?" (Also Correct)

LOL

June 4, 2009 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sundancekid (anonymous) says...

POLITICO: Only 25% don't like Sonia

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennth...

June 4, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

From the same article posted by sundancekid:

June 3, 2009 - U.S. Voters Disagree 3-1 With Sotomayor On Key Case, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Most Say Abolish Affirmative Action

Among the statistics, Hispanic voters themselves are opposed 58-38 percent to giving some racial groups preference for government jobs to increase diversity.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?R...

Good find, sundancekid.

June 4, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Sorry, I meant to say from a link on the same article.

June 4, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...

"You can spin it all you want but that was a statement made by an adult judge in her 40's. Even I had learned the wisdom of humility by then."

Got to agree with you on that point open_eyes.

June 4, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Yeah, there's nobody I know of that sticks their foot in their mouth more than I do - LOL :)

June 4, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

morajic (anonymous) says...

I don't know whether this Sotomayor woman will be good or bad for America, but she's here to stay. We elected a socialist, and it should be no surprise that we have socialist people working under him. The bad part about this woman is that she isn't serving a term, she is serving for life. How old is she? ...Thanks Wikipedia, she's 54 years old. That means we have potentially 30 or more years of her pushing forward Obama's socialist agenda. How am I going to explain this to my kids when they are old enough to understand?

June 4, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

This is from a Russian tabloid. Apparently it isn't only the right-wing "crazies" who feel this way.....

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/colu...

June 5, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )