Tuesday, May 26, 2009

An Anti-White Male Bigot for Justice?

Stuart Taylor on Sotomayor.

Money Q:
Indeed, unless Sotomayor believes that Latina women also make better judges than Latino men, and also better than African-American men and women, her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist.

Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.

9 Comments:

Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I don't recall Alito or Roberts saying anything to a similar tone. Here's hoping for a long, painful grilling in her confirmation hearings.

Justice 'Bigot'? Can we apply the label?

May 27, 2009 at 9:08 AM 
Anonymous Minky said...

Doesn't it strike any one strange, that our supreme court justices are now being picked by race and/ or the color of there skin--- they are considering either a black or a Hispanic or maybe a woman but white males need not apply. Excuse me, but I believe, that discriminating against any one is unconstitutional. Why can't we just pick a qualified indivdual who will follow the tenets of the Constitution? Boy, has this country gone down hill!!!

May 27, 2009 at 9:21 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is an all white male court really the most qualified to judge abortion and discrimination cases?

Does a white man really have the same experiences as a black man of being stopped by police, or followed around department stores, or passed up by cab drivers?

Does a white man really understand the health risks and decisions associated with pregnancy compared to a woman?

Sotomayor has a excellent record academically and on the bench. Her diversity and unique point of view will add to the range of questions the court will consider.

For his next pick, Obama should get a gay Muslim, just to piss off the conservatives.

May 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

so, you're saying that part of the interview process should ALWAYS include:

1)Do you have the experience of being stopped by police, or followed around department stores, or passed up by cab drivers?

2)Do you understand the health risks and decisions associated with pregnancy?


or should it really be

1) Do you understand and recognize the constitution of the United States of America as the law of the land?

2) Do you understand States' Rights?

May 27, 2009 at 12:48 PM 
Blogger /mr said...

Ummm. Just to help Gil's faithful readers out, that would be this Stuart Taylor: (H/T Jamison Foser)


"In 1996, Taylor wrote a buzz-generating article for American Lawyer arguing that Paula Jones had a strong case against Bill Clinton.

In fact, it was obvious that Paula Jones had no case against Bill Clinton. Not because it was obvious Jones was lying, but because -- as Judge Susan Webber Wright ultimately ruled -- even if everything Jones said was true, she had no "genuine issues" worthy of trial. Jones hadn't even alleged any tangible harm that she suffered as a result of Clinton's alleged advances.

So, it isn't just that Taylor was wrong in his assessment of Jones' case, it's that he was spectacularly wrong. Taylor thought Jones had a strong case; the judge ruled that Jones had no case whatsoever. That even if everything she said was true (even the things that contradicted each other) she simply did not have a valid lawsuit."

Not sure that dog's gonna hunt, G.

May 27, 2009 at 1:06 PM 
Anonymous jake said...

Anonymous operates from a false premise. The Supreme Court is neither all white nor all male.
Regardless, I agree with Martin Luther King that we should judge people, even prospective Supreme Court justices, "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".
By that modest standard, Sotomayor's despicable identity politics are definitely unqualified.

May 27, 2009 at 1:08 PM 
Blogger /mr said...

Just for giggles, can you name the former Bush lackey who said this about Clarence Thomas?


[he] stressed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him" and argued that Thomas' work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the less fortunate acquired through personal experience stressed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him" and argued that Thomas' work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the less fortunate acquired through personal experience.


If you guessed John Yoo, yoo would be correct. This must be so confusing to the rump of the Limbaugh party, I'm sure.....

May 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Supreme court isn't all white male, but it's too white male.

Maybe this will jog Mr. McDonald's memory from Alito's testimony:

"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.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. 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 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.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person."

May 27, 2009 at 11:35 PM 
Blogger Pro Christ Pro Gun said...

Anonymous Diano:

Why did Justice Thomas get a stake through the heart when he said that he was a poor black kid who worked hard, got good grades, and was able to achieve in the greatest country in the history of man? Why do the liberals hate him so much yet embrace the hispanic woman, or even the black President?

C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.cscottshields.com

May 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home