South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham would like Sonia Sotomayor to apologize. Why, you ask? Well, the judge made a comment about how “…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.”
Senator Graham, a Southern white dude, would like an apology. And, I kind of don’t blame him. Mainly because if the tables were turned and HE would’ve said these comments referring to HIM and how as a white man with HIS experiences, he would basically make a better judge than a Latina woman, he would’ve been completely reamed with demands for apologies.
According to this article, Graham went on to say, “If I had said something like that – or someone with my background and profile [had] – we wouldn’t be talking about this nomination going forward…. she’s got to prove to me that if I find myself in court with a Latina woman, in front of her, I’d get a fair shake, and that’s up to her to do.”
Of course, Sellout Boy Specter had to make a comment to act like people actually give a crap what he thinks these days, which, by the way, I found highly amusing.
I’m sorry, that’s not OK.
Now, it doesn’t really matter that much as far as her ability to do the job, but it troubles me that you can say something this dumb and wait this long to make a public apology/retraction.
Just say you screwed up Sonia, then we can start figuring out why we REALLY shouldn’t like you.
Graham is exactly right – if he had said that, he’d be getting blasted for being prejudiced and sexist.
She definitely overstepped her bounds. We are all equal I don’t think any prejudice should be allowed. I think there is a difference between jokes and what her honor said.
This is such a pathetic farce on the part of Lindsey Graham. What a desperate attempt to drum up some publicity for him and support from his “base”. BTW, conservatives do realize that their wonderful conservative politicians are relentlessly harping on complete non-issues (such as this one) in hopes that they can get their base all fired up and fill up their coffers? They know that they will never stop her nomination and their attacks are growing more desperate and frantic by the day, as nothing seems to stick. They only make the Republican party seem more out of touch and isolated. Now, so many conservatives love to claim that they are not racist and that all criticisms along that line are hyper-sensitivity/PC nonsense. But when your party has historically played upon white fears (we all knew what Reagan was getting at with his welfare queen speech), attracts so few minorities, takes stances that generally go against minority interests, takes a hard line approach to immigration, and flips their lid trying to paint a minority woman as a “reverse racist”…welll….when it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc. If they want to relegate themselves to regional party status, fine by me. But geez. Even if you claim that the Republican party has no racist elements, you certainly should be aware that it begins to look that way to the public.
To be honest, they are counting on the fact that their base will not even bother to read the rest of her remarks or do some simple research. They are guessing you will just absorb whatever conservative talking points you read on the Washington Times or whatever chain email you got from your cousin/co-worker/whoever. Because as the rest of the world realized a few days ago, if you read her entire speech, this is a JOKE. Your conservative politicians and media have you all worked up over NOTHING. Additionally, Justice Alito’s VERY similar remarks have become widely available…so it was ok for him, but not for her? Please.
Anonymous: What color is the sun on your planet? Alito’s remarks were not similar. There are also other remarks she has said to contend with. You are typical…you tell yourself a lie long enough and you believe it. Just because we don’t have as many minorities in the Republican Party does not mean we are racist. We don’t have as many because we believe in assimilation and the welfare state is out of control. Welfare has become a crutch to a walking man. Force him to walk with it and eventually he will need it.
Minorities in the Republican Party are the true independents of this world. They will not bow to the government and they will not bow to branding.
As to Sotomayor, I might believe a wise latina woman was truly more valuable to the court if her opinions weren’t overturned at minimum 60% of the time. What judicial opinion she has written are not exactly saturated in wisdom or scholarly opinion. When your fellow judges on your own bench continually criticize you that is a problem. But go ahead and support her. Go ahead and forget justice is blind. She is going to be the liberal’s Souter.
What is more concerning is YOUR labeling and spouting of talking points. For the record I read her opinions, but apparently the only opinions you read are those of your fellow left wing bloggers. You repeated them word for word quite nicely. You have lost your individuality and objectivity. What a shame. Maybe you should change your handle to Pseudo Intellect.
Trust me…I am on this blog, hot air, etc. because I try to read all perspectives. Continually I am disappointed by the failure to acknolwledge simple facts. i.e. the 60% thing has been widely discredited by so many sources now that it’s a joke. I agree that she may well be the liberal’s Souter… we don’t really know what she thinks on many controversial issues; we could well be quite disappointed with her.
Maybe you should consider whether you are telling YOURSELF a lie here. Many, many individual Republicans are not racist, that is true. But the party has long preyed on white fears. If all of the party’s policies point in one direction, there needs to at least be an AWARENESS that you are sending a very particular message to minorities. If you aren’t aware of that, you are definitely lying to yourself.
And I’ve lost my individuality and objectivity? Let’s be real here, this blog, and much of the commentary, is not exactly a model of objectivity. And that’s fine, it is not a news source. It comes from a particular perspective and is open about that. But I have seen scant objectivity and willingness to stray from the party line from you, so no need to act as though you are so objective and fair.
The party of Lincoln.
The dems stepped in to take their share of the minority vote during the 70s and 80s after a LOOOOONG history of working against minorities, especially in the south.
As for Republicans being anti-minority on any level, I’m not sure I buy it. Republicans are PRO-law and anti-illegal immigration, so sometimes they do run afoul of minorities in that way, but it’s not really a plank in the platform or anything.
Otherwise, well-stated Anonymous.
Anonymous: I would venture to say I am much more objective than you. You define objectivity as being contrary. While you state categorically that you are sure not all Republicans are racist, you continue to peddle MSM tripe that they are. How many Republican organizations do you belong to? I would venture none, so don’t tell me whether you know any or all are racist. You only have media spin to operate on. Perception is not reality. If you are truly objective, then you would know to an extent that all humans, including minorities, are not only racist, but bigoted as well. At least by the convoluted standards today used to define the terms. The real question should not be ‘if’ they are bigoted, but are they justified in their bigotry and racism.
Just because Republicans don’t exploit minorities for votes does not make them racist. As to ‘white fears’…are those justified? Perhaps they are. When my college sophomore sits in a class and continually hears the brow beating of the FF being rich old white dudes, there is a problem. When we have double standards about that it is impossible for minorities to be racist, there is a problem. Take note that Sotomayor in her comment, didn’t use the term Caucasian, but used the term ‘white’. What’s next? Cracker?
To every action there is an equal opposite reaction.
Laurel Bravo. I enjoyed your logical perspective.
regardless of whether he is asking for an apology either due to his personal agenda or because he truly feels he is insulted. i believe he should be able to. She was being racist towards the people she automatically accuses of racism. i very much dislike the double standards on white people being the only racist people in the country. it is not true anymore. i am not racist i do not appreciate when racism is left to go unchecked towards any race.
Laurel- Since when do I define objective as being contrary? Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are contrary. They might actually hold those beliefs and have based them on a great deal of thought and consideration. I know that I do. So believe it or not, when people disagree with you, it is not necessarily because they are choosing to be disagreeable or are naive liberal kool-aid drinkers. Also, I am definitely aware that every human has some bias…in fact, I assisted a prof on a research project on that very topic. However, the fact that we all have some biases does not excuse racism! If you REALLY read Judge Sotomayor’s speech, you might find that she is saying the exact same thing. She knows she has biases, she is aware of them. She says that she is very conscious of them to ensure that they do not inappropriately influence her decisions. She. is. not. racist. This op-ed (from the MSM, yes) discusses that point: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/opinion/30blow.html?_r=1
Also, Laurel, it really concerns me that you feel that bigotry and racism are sometimes justifiable…surely that is not what you are saying? But when you say things like “The real question should not be ‘if’ they are bigoted, but are they justified in their bigotry and racism,” it is tough to tell.
Majordawg- you are definitely right on the part about how the Dems dominated the south until the “Southern Strategy” by Nixon. So I totally agree with you that the Democrats hands are not entirely clean. However, LBJ enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 KNOWING that the Dems would lose the southern white male vote forever. And they did– those southern racists who were once Democrats went for Nixon’s strategy and are still Republicans to this day. Racism has not OPENLY been a part of the Republican platform for quite awhile, that’s true, except, again, in appeals to white fears– you might argue that they aren’t there but many would say they are barely concealed. Even that was subsiding until the party took such a hard stance on illegal immigration. I myself am of mixed feelings about the illegal immigration issue as I see what a burden it puts on our already strapped social resources, but there is a SUCH resentment and anger by conservatives on the issue that strongly suggests racial motivation. It is the height of hypocrisy when older, white, male conservatives, who have never experienced a day of racism in their lives, like Newt Gingrich (see the article above for just one statement by him) attempt to paint a minority woman, who truly has experienced racism in her life, as a reverse racist. If Newt is truly not racist and his statements have been misconstrued/misunderstood, you would hope that he wouldn’t be so quick to accuse someone else. And on an only semi-related note, the Gallup poll yesterday showed that 89% of Republicans are white. C’mon. With those numbers, the awful reverse racist claims against Sotomayor, and the immigration issue, it is tough to argue that the Republican party does not have a race problem on its hands.
Anonymous: I read her entire opinion, and no it wasn’t taken out of context. Now maybe she was being overly prideful about her race, but there is absolutely no denying the double standard that is held in society today. As to the NY Times, try giving me a credible source that doesn’t feel the need to spin everything and cover Obama’s ass, as well as the rest of the Democrat Party.
I never said racism and bigotry were correct, but there are times that many feel justified. If one group of a particular race spent your entire existence vilifying you, wouldn’t you feel a little touchy about it? Especially if that is all you have ever known? What about if you are raised to think one thing and one way? So there is sometimes a justification or explanation for it. So that is what I want to know! Was she horribly discriminated against her entire life or does she just have a big mouth? So you help out a prof with studies? Well go to law school and learn exactly what justifiable means and how it is applied.
Next up..Newt. Newt is turning the tables on people. He is beating them to the punch, since Caucasians have especially been accused of racism. If a white male had said any such thing, they would have been totally drummed out of society. Heck look at Trent Lott complimenting Strom Thurmond! He had to publicly apologize to every group in America and lost his leadership position in the Senate. BTW..NY Times led the charge. So much for the news…
Yes you do come here just for the sake of being contrary and no you have absolutely no objectivity…NONE! If you had a great deal of thought and consideration, you would recognize the severe double standard in this country, then quite possibly apply some understanding to it so that we may one day unravel the ugliness of racism. I find it ironic that you automatically play defense on every thread.
One other thing Anonymous…take special note that Sotomayor popped off at the mouth at what she thought was a safe venue.
Laurel- Believe it or not, I have considered this “double standard” you speak of. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I haven’t thought about it– again. Since the topic of discussion here is Sotomayor’s nomination and the claims of racism against her, yes, I have considered the “reverse discrimination” conservatives are so upset about. Yes, I know what conservatives call “reverse discrimination” does exist in this world. It is just ridiculous to me when people who have had every privilege in life– i.e. so many rich, conservative male politications– are screaming about reverse discrimination, say, in admission to colleges. Sometimes, it produces outcomes that might be disappointing for some, such as when a caucasian and a minority with the same qualifications apply to school, we know that the school will automatically take the minority first. I do understand that it is disappointing and frustrating for that caucasian person. I have experienced this myself, in college, in jobs, etc. But unlike you, it really doesn’t make me angry. I can recognize that the actual racial discrimination that still exists in this world FAR OUTWEIGHS the reverse discrimination you speak of.
Strom Thurmond ran on a ticket of re-segregation, if I am not mistaken. You think it is OK to say that the U.S. would be better off if he had won? Whoa. But Sotomayor’s speech talking about her Latina heritage– indefensible racism!!! Gimme a break.
Also, I understand you might feel that the NYTimes is biased, I would totally agree that it leans left. But what source DO you consider credible?