Sonia Sotomayor Is A Racist
We’ve been relatively silent when it comes to U.S. President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.
How come? Two reasons, actually.
First, there’s not much anybody can do to stop it from happening – and with Obama trying to ram a massive energy tax hike and socialized health care proposal through Congress, the phrase “pick your battles” comes to mind.
Second, Sotomayor is replacing a scorching leftist, meaning that her inevitable appointment is not going to change the ideological balance of the court.
Still, and we hate saying this, but it is painfully obvious at this point that Sotomayor is a racist. Not a “reverse racist,” mind you … a racist.
Sure, she’s presented her racism innocuously enough, referencing how her upbringing would “color” her decisions, but the reality is that Sotomayor has ruled – and will likely continue to rule – against white people for no other reason than the color of their skin. And frankly, that’s every bit as wrong (and racist) as someone opposing Sotomayor’s nomination based on the color of her skin.
Again, it’s not “empathy,” it’s racism.
Anyway, today affords us another sneak peek at how Sotomayor would apply her “colored glasses” to the law.
From the LA Times:
The Supreme Court today ruled 5-4 for white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who qualified for promotions by doing well on a test that the city later threw out because black firefighters did not.
Ordinarily, that would make for an interesting news bulletin, another round in the cultural debate over discrimination, affirmative action and the fairness of testing.
But this case will get a lot more attention, if only because federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor — the first nomination President Obama has made to the Supreme Court — was one of three judges to rule against the white firefighters.
Actually, “ruled against” is putting it nicely. Sotomayor dismissed the case without providing any legal basis for her decision. That, by definition, is a racist ruling – one that she didn’t even bother to justify on its legal merits.
Look, people. Racism is wrong under any circumstances – whether inside or outside the bounds of political correctness.
It’s also stupid, as the guy in Sic Willie’s fantasy baseball league who refuses to draft Latino players is learning the hard way.
The bottom line is this, though … any lawmaker who votes for Sotomayor is knowingly endorsing racism on our nation’s highest court.
Comments
By SCCON on June 29th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Her confirmation will enshrine in the Constitution the proposition that all Americans are equal, but white male Americans are less equal than others.
By Rick on June 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Surely not!!!! After all, she didn’t mean a wise Latina women, she mean’t a dumbass latina woman who can’t keep her trap shut would make better decisions than an old white man. Hey Sonia, need more bullets for that gun you keep shooting yourself with?
By South Carolina Law on June 29th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
This post shows a lack of understanding about the role of appellate courts, which are bound to apply existing law, as opposed to supreme courts who have greater judicial freedom. Sotomayor joined two other judges in issuing this per curiam opinion, one of whom is a white male (Judge Robert Sack) and the other who is a white woman (Judge Rosemary Pooler). So you’re calling them racists, too?
By poser on June 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I think she held up an existing statute requiring a certain amount of minorities on the squad. So what the SC did is legislate from the bench by overturning the will of the people. I dont like the law but she upheld it. SC said unconstitutional. No one is a racist in this fight.
By Crooner on June 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
SC Law:
Fits apparently is also calling Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens racists since they dissented in a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court. Oh wait, can white people be racist against whites?
By Pat Hendrix on June 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Racism? Fits really is the online verson of a clown car. She didn’t write the statute, the elected representatives of the town did. By your standards, they’re racists. Two fellow appellate court judges, both white, sided with her. Also racist. Four members of the SC, all white, voted to uphold the decision. Racists, too.
Sorry, the logical thread is getting frayed. Maybe this one needs to go back to the shop.
And SCCON, as a middle class white dude, I’m with you all the way. One of these days white guys will get the breaks we deserve. Who knows, maybe one of us will even get elected president or get nominated to the Supreme Court.
By Jimbo on June 29th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I think Fits has been watching too much Faux news. Just because fat old budget busting Newt and fat old Dick Morris regurgitate this talking point doesn’t make it so. Having fat over the hill white men – the Fox appointed pundits -call her a racist will only increase her chances of getting on the court.
By vennie on June 29th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I suppose that she is a member of racist, exclusionary, all- Latino, feminist “club” isn’t all disturbing, either.
I’ll wear some make-up if I have to appear before her court.
By Jim on June 29th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
SC Law and Crooner,
Note footnote 10 of Ginsburg’s dissent. Even the dissenters state that the per curiam opinion issued by the second circuit was error because the second circuit applied the incorrect standard. So that’s 9-0 against Sotomayor. Sotomayor didn’t even apply the correct standard to reach her racist result.
By Crooner on June 29th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Jim:
Ginsburg’s point in fn 10 was that the Supreme Court should have remanded the case to the lower Court for further consideration of the new standard the SCt set out in this case RATHER THAN end the case at this level. After all, this all began because the USDC (Court below Sotomayor) granted New Haven’s motion for summary judgement, meaning that the case has never been heard on the merits.
But the bigger picture is that any Republican attack on this latina will just further marginalize the party. Big tent indeed.
By bill on June 29th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Again just shows how stupid Fitsnews is.
By The Peninsula on June 29th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Given her membership in a Women-Only social club, I think it’s safe to conclude that she was sexist as well.
By Checking In on June 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Clearly have to agree with SC Law and the majority on this. She was to apply existing law. That is how the court works. I wonder if any of the other 2 justices on the appellate court had been up for a nomination would we be calling them racists….no, because “shockingly” they are white.
Watching Fox News this AM, was almost nauseating, because watching Megan Kely, who is extremely attractive and easy to watch, try to explain an opinion she hadn’t even seen, let alone read, as conservative versus liberal was awful. No spin my ass…..
By Jim on June 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Crooner,
False. The exact quote is ““The lower courts focused on respondents’ ‘intent’ rather than on whether respondents in fact had good cause to act.” She is not discussing the new standard enunciated by the Kennedy opinion that “the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact.”
Rather, she is correcting the lower courts incorrect examination of the city’s intent, rather than “good cause to act.” That is the previous standard and she is stating that the lower court misapplied that standard.
Certainly would seem to warrant more than a per curiam adaptation of the lower court’s decision.
By Jim on June 29th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Crooner,
One more thing – who cares about a “Big Tent.” Discrimination is wrong. I’d rather Republicans fought to the last man for Equal Justice Under Law than concede to liberal’s racial grievance system of justice.
By sclawyerIII on June 29th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I don’t really have an opinion on Sotomayor rather than she is qualified and inevitable. Probably not the best candidate available, but she will be confirmed.
I do think your article is somewhat ridiculous though.
Sotomayor was one of a panel of judges who affirmed a district court ruling. the District Court applied federal law as existed prior to today and it does not appear that anyone is disputing that they followed precedent.
The five justices in the Majority today, overturned previous precedent and created an entirely new judicial standard to evaluate claims similar to those raised by the firefighters. It was notably a standard that neither the District Court or the Circuit Court could have applied since it did not exist. Lower Courts are supposed to follow the rulings of the Courts above them, and by all appearances the Circuit Couty did so.
For the Circuit Court to have found for the fire fighters it would have had to create new law and legistlated from the bench as the Majority did today.
By vennie on June 29th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Had Roberts or Alito been active members in an exclusionary, all-male, all white “social club” , the same supporters of Sotomayor would have vehemently screamed “racists!”
By sclawyerIII on June 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Jim,
The standard that the Court applied to the firefighter case did not exist to be applied until this morning.
Ginsburg vehemently dissented from the creation of the new standard and would have voted to affirm the Circuit Court ruling of which Sotomayor was a part.
Ginsburg went on to say that if the Court was going to create a completely new standard for adjudicating the case, that the parties should be allowed to prepare its evidence and arguments with knowledge of the standard by which the case would be judged.
So four justices would affirm the Circuit and District Courts.
By You Know That's Right! on June 29th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Bitch hates whitey, plain and simple. If that ain’t obvious to you, then you ass needs to go back to Kingergarden.
By Pedro on June 29th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
You gringos need to look up at that picture and realize blacks and latinos are going to be running this country for the next few decades.
Get used to it or find yourself an all white country where you can be comfortable.
By Ankhorite on June 29th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
You’re wrong about Sotomayor, and you’ll be ashamed of yourself in time.
By fitsnews on June 29th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
And we hope you’re ashamed for what you’re doing to that poor rodent.
-FITS
By Jim on June 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
SCLawyerIII,
I agree that the majority this morning created a new standard, the “strong basis in evidence” standard.
I’m assuming with your handle you are an attorney, so I’ll also give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not suggesting that no standard existed before this morning for evaluating “disparate impact” cases under Title VII. Of course, one did, it’s the “good cause to act” standard. That is exactly what Ginsburg was arguing should continue to apply. But Ginsburg, in footnote 10, is also forced to note that the District Court misapplied the PREVIOUS standard, by focusing on the city’s intent, rather than good cause to act. She recommends a remand on that basis.
So the second circuit affirmed, per curiam, the district court’s application of the wrong standard even under the law as it existed before this morning.
By Pat Hendrix on June 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
YKTR,
Thanks for elevating the debate.
And Jim, this notion of the Republican Party as the vehicle for correcting discrimation is absurd. Nixon’s Southern Strategy ring a bell? How about Reagan’s “states rights” campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 1960s? How about siding with Bob Jones and their ban on interacial dating? Or Constructive Engagement? How about GHW Bush, or Goldwater, or Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond or the two morons in the SC Republican Party who recently made racial jokes about asprin and apes. Four decades of coded racial messages were the path to power for the GOP. In 2004, it was all about gays – a predictable variation on an old theme.
So spare me the discussion of racism. It’s your party’s bread and butter since at least 1964.
By SCCON on June 29th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Did Barack Obama’s listserve link to this column today? Sheesh!
Sotomayor will join the ranks of Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg, who believe that justice should be BLIND. As in IMPARTIAL. As in you should not get ten years if you are hispanic because you had a rough childhood and life if you are white because you came from an economically privileged background.
The problem is not just that Sotomayor looks down on white men, though that is obviously a character flaw. The larger problem is that she apparently holds a view of the law that doesn’t reach above petty questions of race or class or gender to seek a uniform rule of law under which all citizens are equal.
By Charles on June 29th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Vennie, perhaps minorities should be encouraged by the fact Republicans are apparently now willing to stipulate that ones past or current membership in a single race club is an indication of racial bigotry. After all they have been arguing that for a long time. However,it seems an odd line of reasoning for Republicans to go down.
By Jim on June 29th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Pat Hendrix,
Please explain to me how these two things are not racist:
1) A white man, in the breadth of his experience, will generally reach a better result in most cases than a latino man.
2) Although each test taker met all of the requirements for promotion, we will not promote them because they are black.
Spare me the ridiculous (and inaccurate) lecture.
By Jim on June 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Pat Hendrix,
Also interesting is your logic – conservatives engaged in racism ergo its ok for liberals to engage in racism.
I guess its really not that interesting. Just an accurate statement of the sad state of current liberal racial grievance mongering.
By madcock on June 29th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
This thread may be the best evidence since the defense of Marshall the Adulterer of just how incredibly hypocritical the conservative movement is.
First off, if Sotomayor is a racist because of her “wise latina woman” statement I eagerly await fits condemnation of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas as racists also.
Thomas for his comment during his confirmation “that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something DIFFERENT to the court because I have walked in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the court does.”
Alito for his comment to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he should be confirmed in part becaue “When I get a case about discrimination, I think about my own family who sufferred discrimination because of my ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”
Secondly, the cons love to whine about judicial activism, the Supremes creating new guidelines and laws rather than relying on precedent. As many have already posted here, the court’s majority did just that today.
Of course there will be not a word of “racist” invective hurled at Thomas and Alito or “activist” at Justices Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy.
And there is only one reason why, the Republicans are totally unprincipled in every way but one, the principle of “say anything to preserve our power.”
I guess when you have Jesus in your hip pocket you can be that way.
By randee on June 29th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Which party ordered the wire-tapping of the late Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.?
That’s right–the party of Jim Crow!
The same party who has a former “Grand Dragon” of the KKK in the senate!
The same party which consistently blocked prominent Latino and black judges from the bench during the past 8 years..
Ladies and gentlemen…the Democratic Party!
(JFK ordered the taps, people—any questions?)
By madcock on June 29th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Randee, the Republican party in the south exists only because the Democratic Party abandoned Jim Crow.
The pillars of the GOP in SC, Strom, Albert Watson, Floyd Spence, and their ilk all left the Dem. party when it began opposing all-white water fountains and separate schools for white and black children.
Although at least some of them had no problem fathering half-black children themselves.
I will just assume you are young and get your history from Sean Hannity.
By Pat Hendrix on June 29th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Jim,
My post was not grievance mongering, whatever that is, it was a simple statement of fact. Here is another: The sun rises in the east. The rest of your sentiments are little more than tired and meritless talking points.
Randee,
Curious that you would go back decades to find the racist wing of the Democratic Party. Yes, Robert Bird was in the Klan a hundred years ago. Yeah, he is an old fool, no denying that. It would be a stretch to call Kennedy a racist. Ugh, Nixon? Give his tapes a listen. Simply mindblowing.
As for the Democratic Party’s racist past, agreed. We fought a war to keep blacks as chattel. But you leave out a curious and inconvenient caveat: The racist Democrats that once held sway in the party left in mass after 1964, culminating in Nixon’s Southern Strategy. That’s how avowed racists like Strom Thurmond ended up in the Republican Party. Yeah, they’re yours now. It was your path to power, now it’s your path a generational minority. Come to think of it, you should start citing Teddy Roosevelt as the environmental champion of the party. Makes about as much sense.
By Interrloper on June 30th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Absolutely not! Sotomayor was right. SCOTUS is wrong. But for the likelihood of this ruling falling quickly, this would be another Dred Scot decision. Under Title VII analysis, tests must be job-related. This test has not been proven to be job-related. The majority in today’s opinion treated that as if it did not matter. But, as the dissent argued, a test cannot result in qualified candidates if the test is flawed. A test is flawed if it penalizes people for something other than lack of job-related knowledge.
The situation is very similar to something S.C. is more than passingly familiar with, literacy tests for voting. The basis for the penalty has nothing to do with what is at stake, ie., voting in this example, fighting fires in the Ricci case.
The next step is for black and Hispanic firefighters to challenge today’s ruling by presenting a record showing that the test has not been validated, and, that there is a history of racial discrimination in the fire department. Both are thresholds relatively easy to meet. Nothing in today’s opinion prevents a Title VII challenge once those two requirements are met.
People who want to leave the outcome of centuries of discrimination intact are the real racists.
By vennie on June 30th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Pat,
Silly. Last I checked, Strom Thurmond and Floyd Spence are dead.
Bringing up the views of dead, former democrats hardly makes your points relevant.
Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court, placed by a REPUBLICAN president.
He was the victim a “high tech lynching” by the Racist Left as were numerous minority judges that the Republicans attempted to seat over the past 8 years.
By Jim on June 30th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Pat Hendrix,
Talking points become talking points because they are accurate and unanswerable, as your post just proved.
By Jim on June 30th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Pat,
Or I guess I should say as your non-response just proved. Calling something “talking points” as a way of dismissal is a refuge for the witless internet poster.
One more question you won’t respond to, or will non-respond to with your oh so original and creative dismissal of “talking points” – what does anything in your original post have to do with whether or not Sotomayor is a racist, or can see beyond her prejudices to dispense justice? Anything? Anything at all? Everything you said could be true and Sotomayor could still be a racist. All you’ve proven by your post is that your white guilt perception of history colors your analysis of whether or not she should be elevated.
By Pat Hendrix on June 30th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Vennie,
I found the treatment of Thomas unprofessional and a low point for the Democratic Party, though not a “high tech lynching”, whatever that is. There was plenty to object to in Judge Thomas’ record that had nothing to do with bad behavior at work. Nevertheless, if you want me to name still living Republicans that are racial and sexual demagogues, this could be a long post. And whether Strom and Floyd Spence, who was not mentioned, are dead was beside the point. Reading comprehension can be difficult, try again.
And Jim,
Talking points are never “accurate and unanswerable.” They are a cheapening of political discourse as your post proved. Rather than using facts and reason to craft arguments that fit reality, you lazily produce prefabricated memes, arguments and conclusions that relieve the user of thinking. It may be a functional technique in the group-think of fitsnews, but does not usually conform with the facts.
I would answer each of your points, but I went back read them again. They are basically so incomprehensible and lacking in substance that they require not reply. For instance, where did I imply that Republican racism validated Democratic racism? That is a strawman argument. I was simply pointing to the fact that the Republican Party has not been the standard bearer of civil rights over the past 40 years.
The other points are even better. Here is a quote from Alito:
“I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame
And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”
When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.
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. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNfyZWnQVnQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsbusters%2Eorg%2Fblogs%2Fnoel%2Dsheppard%2F2009%2F06%2F01%2Folbermann%2Dfalsely%2Dcompares%2Dsotomayors%2Dremarks%2Dalitos&feature=player_embedded
I suppose this qualifies Judge Alito to be a racist? No, of course not. Nor does her statement suggest that she believes in Latino supremacy. To argue that would be ridiculous.
As to issue of the case, I suggest you read up on the role of appellate judges, which are required to apply existing law. The SC is not. By the way, she was joined by two white judges. Presumably racist judges, too.
By clare on June 30th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Oh my gosh, people….of course she is a racist!
By gene willis on July 5th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
thats it,lets keep the liberal faith.minorities can never do anything wrong.they dont kill people,only white males do.they dont say racist things,only white males do,they study hard for tests because that is the right thing to do becuase they wouldnt think twice about using there race or gender to accqire permotions or getting a job.only white males do.minorities would never rob or riot causing untold damages to anyone community,only white males would do that.are you little liberal getting the picture here?every sect can be a racist,but the liberals only notice the white christian males on eveything.colour blind society my ass
By smash on July 8th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
let’s keep this racist off the supreme court. she has no right to practice law as a racist, let alone sit on the highest court in the land.
By ken on July 12th, 2009 at 3:05 am
Is this the best “latina woman” our country has to offer? I don’t care what race the person is that is appointed. Lets just not appoint a racist one.
By bill on July 13th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Sotomayor is a racist – you Dems/Libs need to get past winning at all costs — its hurting this country
By tom on July 14th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
In a 2001 speech, she said: “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.”
I think that statement speaks for itself, but let me paraphrase: Latina women judges are better than white men judges.
Imagine the public furor if a white male judge offered the opposite assessment. Would he be nominated for the Supreme Court? Would he be confirmed? Or would he be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail?
SHE IS NOTHING BUT A RACIST PERIOD! SHE IS ANTI-WHITE AS DEMONSTRATED BY HER DECISION TO ALLOW LESS qualified fire fighters to do the job. Hell, would you want a less qualified doctor doing brain surgery on you?
By A white male on July 16th, 2009 at 9:52 am
so let me get this straight. I am a firefighter who has passed this exam for another state. I worked hard studied harder in order to take a higher ranking and a better paying position. My men trust me to make the decisions and I trust them to do as I say. They derive this from my working knowledge because of the training I recieve. Alot is based upon this test. They give you the test and the answers you just have to study it. You don’t study you don’t pass. The guys who are firefighters couldnt’t pass the test so you do not get the job. So now you think its ok to get rid of a test. You are messing with peoples lives I hope sotomoyars house catches fire and her incompetent firemen show up and it costs her big time. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITE OR BLACK!!! It is competent versus non competent they just happen to be black this is dumb and you people are nuts