...so why should I stand in its way?
It is just being reported that Sonia Sotomayor has received approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee to have her nomination appear on the Senate floor next week. It should be no surprise that the votes were largely along party lines, with 12 Democrats supporting her and 6 Republicans opposing. What's that? You say there's one member unaccounted for? Well look no further than Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who was the lone Republican voting to approve Sotomayor's nomination to go to the Senate floor. It sounds as if Graham, and any Republican that votes for Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supremes, is hellbent on proving this mantra from liberals that opposition to a minority is racist. Liberals, of course, are of the mindset that all Latinos think alike and will see that a majority of the Republicans on the Senate Judicary committee will see this as a slight, not a disapproval of her policy stances. Who are the racists?
Like Obama, pro-Sotomayor types would like us to forget her rulings and her public statements. Her mask came loose during her confirmation hearings, and was noticed by not only righties, but some lefties as well. Her actions as a judge on the Second Circuit don't line up with her answers to questions during her confirmation hearing. Liberals and pro-Sotomayor types in the Republican party, don't care about that. They're more concerned with showing how "racist" the members of the GOP who don't support Sotomayor are. I'm close to going out on a limb and suggesting that the people who always rely on playing the "race card" to try and stifle dissent, where it is warranted, are damaging this nation...and they don't care.
We did not hear the race card being played by liberals when they decided it was ok to oppose Justice Clarence Thomas, or criticize Dr. Condi Rice every day of the week. They claimed their opposition lie in policy differences, not race. I am sure the electorate votes the same way, at least for the most part. When a person walks into a voting booth, they don't decide their votes on racial lines, they vote based on the candidate representing their views. If liberals' thoughts were correct, Michael Steele would be a US Senator, not necessarily RNC Chairman. Ken Blackwell would be governor of Ohio, not Ted Strickland. President Obama, as a US Senator, voted against Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, because he did not like their rulings, and I'd believe that about the other 21 Democrats who voted against Roberts and the other 41 that voted against Alito. It would be hypocrisy for Democrats to suggest opposition to Sotomayor is strictly based on the fact the GOP doesn't like minorities.
And when have Democrats been above hypocrisy?
Have a great day...
Showing posts with label Sotomayor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sotomayor. Show all posts
15 July 2009
Pam's House Blend: Jeff Sessions is a man and isn't qualified to question Sotomayor...
...his testicles are shrinking before my very eyes...
Well, it's refreshing to see liberals championing women again. I'm sure Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, and Janice Rogers Brown would have welcomed the change a little sooner than later. Pam Spaulding, of Pam's House Blend, is criticizing "pale males" who have the audacity to question Sonia Sotomayor on her tendency to champion the minority over the white guy. As I mentioned before about many in the pro-Sotomayor crowd, they haven't noted Sonia's reversals and backtracking on her words. They are highlighting Jeff Sessions' testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986, to try and distract people from the truth about Sonia.
At least Pam Spaulding has now admitted that a strong woman makes men like Chrissy Matthews and Barack Obama jealous. But of course, none of her criticism is directed at the likes of those in the media who were airlifted to Juneau on September 30th, 2008. It will be even more refreshing when Pam gets her friends in the media to collectively admit that Palin, and Hillary Clinton, were treated shamelessly by them. When Condoleeza Rice and Sarah Palin voiced opposition to the savagery they faced, Pam slammed Rice for distracting from Senator Boxer's alleged main point about the sacrifice of military families and encouraged Katie Couric to take the gloves off when she interviewed Governor Palin last year. So it seems disingenuous for Ms. Spaulding to issue caution warnings to GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee after calling on Palin and Rice's opponents to take "the gloves off" when talking to conservative women.
As I have always said, liberals view any policy differences personally, which is why they don't see the Republican senators questioning Sotomayor as legitimate. This confirmation process is less about race, and more about whether Sonia is qualified for the court. Liberals are making this about Sotomayor's race, as she did, when she made her comment about being a "wise Latina." They highlight Jeff Sessions' alleged racial bias, by relying on the testimony of one J. Gerald Hebert, and believe that Senator Sessions, like the other white Republicans, are threatened by the slippage of a white majority. Obviously, they haven't heard the same confirmation hearings I have. None of the Democratic senators have taken the view their base has in these hearings. I'm sure someone as uncouth as Charles Schumer and Al Franken would have pointed that out.
Unlike Democrats during the Alito and Thomas hearings, Republicans are ensuring that Sotomayor is being candid about her jurisprudence (which she isn't). Not one Democratic ally, that I know of, was cautioning Democratic senators on the Judicary Committee to tred lightly in their treatment of Justice Thomas. They tried to derail that man before he sat down in front of the dais, led by the NAACP and the paragon of women's rights, Bob Packwood (R-OR), was right there to oppose Thomas. I just wish liberals would be honest with not only themselves, but with the public and agree with Sotomayor's opponents, that she's not qualified. They can cry all day long about white men scared of their diminishing power, but I notice these arguments were absent when the nominee was a minority of a different political persuasion.
Have a great day...
Well, it's refreshing to see liberals championing women again. I'm sure Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, and Janice Rogers Brown would have welcomed the change a little sooner than later. Pam Spaulding, of Pam's House Blend, is criticizing "pale males" who have the audacity to question Sonia Sotomayor on her tendency to champion the minority over the white guy. As I mentioned before about many in the pro-Sotomayor crowd, they haven't noted Sonia's reversals and backtracking on her words. They are highlighting Jeff Sessions' testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986, to try and distract people from the truth about Sonia.
At least Pam Spaulding has now admitted that a strong woman makes men like Chrissy Matthews and Barack Obama jealous. But of course, none of her criticism is directed at the likes of those in the media who were airlifted to Juneau on September 30th, 2008. It will be even more refreshing when Pam gets her friends in the media to collectively admit that Palin, and Hillary Clinton, were treated shamelessly by them. When Condoleeza Rice and Sarah Palin voiced opposition to the savagery they faced, Pam slammed Rice for distracting from Senator Boxer's alleged main point about the sacrifice of military families and encouraged Katie Couric to take the gloves off when she interviewed Governor Palin last year. So it seems disingenuous for Ms. Spaulding to issue caution warnings to GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee after calling on Palin and Rice's opponents to take "the gloves off" when talking to conservative women.
As I have always said, liberals view any policy differences personally, which is why they don't see the Republican senators questioning Sotomayor as legitimate. This confirmation process is less about race, and more about whether Sonia is qualified for the court. Liberals are making this about Sotomayor's race, as she did, when she made her comment about being a "wise Latina." They highlight Jeff Sessions' alleged racial bias, by relying on the testimony of one J. Gerald Hebert, and believe that Senator Sessions, like the other white Republicans, are threatened by the slippage of a white majority. Obviously, they haven't heard the same confirmation hearings I have. None of the Democratic senators have taken the view their base has in these hearings. I'm sure someone as uncouth as Charles Schumer and Al Franken would have pointed that out.
Unlike Democrats during the Alito and Thomas hearings, Republicans are ensuring that Sotomayor is being candid about her jurisprudence (which she isn't). Not one Democratic ally, that I know of, was cautioning Democratic senators on the Judicary Committee to tred lightly in their treatment of Justice Thomas. They tried to derail that man before he sat down in front of the dais, led by the NAACP and the paragon of women's rights, Bob Packwood (R-OR), was right there to oppose Thomas. I just wish liberals would be honest with not only themselves, but with the public and agree with Sotomayor's opponents, that she's not qualified. They can cry all day long about white men scared of their diminishing power, but I notice these arguments were absent when the nominee was a minority of a different political persuasion.
Have a great day...
Pro-Sotomayorites: Did you know Jeff Sessions asked different questions to Sam Alito?
...that just shows how racist he is...
It seems the folks over at Crooks and Liars take issue with the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee forcing "So So" to backtrack on her "wise Latina" remarks. This is why I wanted the GOP members to disregard the "advice" of Hispanic "rights" groups and go after Sotomayor on her weird applications of the law, since liberals will view them as racists anyway (Didn't the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, most notably Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), praise the GOP for not being nasty towards Sonia?). Media Matters (not to them) complained that Senator Sessions stated in his opening remarks that he, nor any other senator, should vote for a judge's elevation to the Supreme Court based on personal experience, and noted his vote for Associate Justice Sam Alito. The moral equivalency game being played by liberals on this issue is not surprising, considering how they didn't think it was out of line to search the video rentals of a certain Supreme Court nominee.
I should dive further in what I said about Sam Alito's personal experience comment. Unlike Sotomayor, who believes that her Latinaness gives her more insight than Sam Alito would, Alito stated that his ethnic background would help him make decisions, not that because he's an Italian-American that he somehow has more experience than Anthony Kennedy or John Paul Stevens, who have more judicial experience than both of them combined. Crooks and Liars attempts to take Rush Limbaugh to the woodshed for suggesting Judge "So So's" remarks were worse than what former Virginia senator, George Allen, uttered about S. R. Sidharth during the campaign of 2006 (I would also like to note that C & L had no mention of the anti-Semitic and other objectifying materials coming from Allen's opponent in that race, James Webb). I am not understanding John Amato's rationale here. Macaca didn't have any meaning until liberals decided that the wealthy was a new protected class in Amurica. Furthermore, when liberals and the media (redundant, I know) declared it racist, they then used it to marginalize Allen for being Jewish (I do recall several times, former Air America host, Mark Riley, and other liberals referring to George Allen as "Macacawitz," so maybe it wasn't THAT racist at all...). I wonder if John Amato noticed he used the same offensive word in describing Allen...oh the horror!
Of course, this is yet another episode of the methods we've become all too familiar with coming from Obamabots. Only this time, covering up for his failures and incompetence isn't only coming from his right, it's coming from the left as well. Michael Seidman, a law professor at the University of Georgetown, believes that Sotomayor is either a perjurer or dumber than Keith Olbermann (I made that last part up). None of the liberal apologists have noted that if Sotomayor's words were so fucking innocent, she wouldn't have backpedaled from them. They haven't taken note that if Sonia did not believe that her race makes her more qualified than a contemporary white man, she wouldn't have repeated the same assertion over seven times throughout her judicial career. Her attempt to play off retired Justice O'Connor is an excuse to cover for her racist views. Justice O'Connor commented that a woman or man should come to a similar conclusion, if they applied the law, while Sotomayor believed her Latinaness would allow her to reach a better result.
Liberals can try to fool people into believing that Republicans and others who have reservations about Sotomayor's jurisprudence is racist. Some will be fooled, but those who aren't know that Sonia was lacking in candor, and engaged in a little intellectual dishonesty during her confirmation hearings. Liberals believe that minorities groups are monolithic, that they all vote with one voice. They're like the moderate voter, who must be treated like a crystal flower. Only one wrong move will turn off these minority voters once and for all, as Craig Crawford explains. This bigoted thinking helps to explain why liberals have so much contempt for minority conservatives...
But it's foolish, at least according to liberals, to think that any liberal could BE racist when the evidence is staring them in the face...
Have a great day...
It seems the folks over at Crooks and Liars take issue with the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee forcing "So So" to backtrack on her "wise Latina" remarks. This is why I wanted the GOP members to disregard the "advice" of Hispanic "rights" groups and go after Sotomayor on her weird applications of the law, since liberals will view them as racists anyway (Didn't the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, most notably Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), praise the GOP for not being nasty towards Sonia?). Media Matters (not to them) complained that Senator Sessions stated in his opening remarks that he, nor any other senator, should vote for a judge's elevation to the Supreme Court based on personal experience, and noted his vote for Associate Justice Sam Alito. The moral equivalency game being played by liberals on this issue is not surprising, considering how they didn't think it was out of line to search the video rentals of a certain Supreme Court nominee.
I should dive further in what I said about Sam Alito's personal experience comment. Unlike Sotomayor, who believes that her Latinaness gives her more insight than Sam Alito would, Alito stated that his ethnic background would help him make decisions, not that because he's an Italian-American that he somehow has more experience than Anthony Kennedy or John Paul Stevens, who have more judicial experience than both of them combined. Crooks and Liars attempts to take Rush Limbaugh to the woodshed for suggesting Judge "So So's" remarks were worse than what former Virginia senator, George Allen, uttered about S. R. Sidharth during the campaign of 2006 (I would also like to note that C & L had no mention of the anti-Semitic and other objectifying materials coming from Allen's opponent in that race, James Webb). I am not understanding John Amato's rationale here. Macaca didn't have any meaning until liberals decided that the wealthy was a new protected class in Amurica. Furthermore, when liberals and the media (redundant, I know) declared it racist, they then used it to marginalize Allen for being Jewish (I do recall several times, former Air America host, Mark Riley, and other liberals referring to George Allen as "Macacawitz," so maybe it wasn't THAT racist at all...). I wonder if John Amato noticed he used the same offensive word in describing Allen...oh the horror!
Of course, this is yet another episode of the methods we've become all too familiar with coming from Obamabots. Only this time, covering up for his failures and incompetence isn't only coming from his right, it's coming from the left as well. Michael Seidman, a law professor at the University of Georgetown, believes that Sotomayor is either a perjurer or dumber than Keith Olbermann (I made that last part up). None of the liberal apologists have noted that if Sotomayor's words were so fucking innocent, she wouldn't have backpedaled from them. They haven't taken note that if Sonia did not believe that her race makes her more qualified than a contemporary white man, she wouldn't have repeated the same assertion over seven times throughout her judicial career. Her attempt to play off retired Justice O'Connor is an excuse to cover for her racist views. Justice O'Connor commented that a woman or man should come to a similar conclusion, if they applied the law, while Sotomayor believed her Latinaness would allow her to reach a better result.
Liberals can try to fool people into believing that Republicans and others who have reservations about Sotomayor's jurisprudence is racist. Some will be fooled, but those who aren't know that Sonia was lacking in candor, and engaged in a little intellectual dishonesty during her confirmation hearings. Liberals believe that minorities groups are monolithic, that they all vote with one voice. They're like the moderate voter, who must be treated like a crystal flower. Only one wrong move will turn off these minority voters once and for all, as Craig Crawford explains. This bigoted thinking helps to explain why liberals have so much contempt for minority conservatives...
But it's foolish, at least according to liberals, to think that any liberal could BE racist when the evidence is staring them in the face...
Have a great day...
14 July 2009
Liberals: Advocating the murder of public officials is wrong...
...we've reached an epiphany since our guy was elected to the White House...
Jason Mattera, the cute spokesman of the Young America's Foundation, has made a few new friends on the blue blogosphere for posting on his Facebook page a thought about when Sonia gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, whether she'll have a tendency to shank fellow Justice Antonin Scalia. He admitted that he was mocking liberal's beliefs that Sotomayor's life gives her an insight into jurisprudence that seems to escape the white members, and the lone black on the bench. Liberals at Think Progress twirled like Diana Prince and became the Race Police, attacking Mattera for not serving in the military. This would not be laughable if most of the Democratic party voted for the military veteran over someone who thought military service was an anathema to the best interests of the United States...but they didn't. In fact, liberals view military service as a credible qualification, much like Bill Clinton's policy stances...whatever way the political winds were blowing.
Another person the Race Police must tackle with their Lasso of Diversity Training, is Debbie Schlussel, who refers to Sonia Sotomayor as "Justice J-Lo" and "So So." Don't ask me how that's racist, 'cause I dunno. Last I checked, the real J-Lo is a very attractive woman, and the pro-Sotomayor crowd should thank Schlussel for paying a less deserving woman such a high compliment, instead of projecting their own racist views on others. It shows that like his cabinet nominees, Obama can't vet his appointments to the US Supreme Court. Liberals know if a Republican president nominated someone with the record of Sotomayor, there'd be protesting in the streets. Hell, there was one Supreme Court nominee whose jurisprudence outshined So So's on every level, and he went down in defeat in 1987, with a vote of 42-58, with Snarlin' Arlen Specter (then R-PA) and that paragon of women's rights (*snicker*), Bob Packwood (R-OR), opposing.
This new epiphany that liberals have reached is remarkable and appreciated (/sarc). It's nice that they oppose killing public officials who disagree with them. It's also nice that liberals oppose promoting someone solely based on race, but did liberals have to destroy the careers of successful minorities along the way? During Senator Feinstein's Q & A with Sotomayor, she got all pissed off because Miguel Estrada's name reemerged in the debate. She claimed that Estrada would not answer questions, which is the same thing her union bosses said, and he was not as qualified as their dear Sonia. Senator Feinstein forgot to mention the hurdles they placed in front of Estrada, subjecting him to treatment no other federal court nominee had to face. According to an article written by Byron York in 2003, Democrats refused to send questions to the White House for the nominee to answer. They didn't want Estrada to answer any questions, but they also had nothing to hammer him about...
Estrada wasn't good at the Democrats' game of gotcha...
So Democrats shouldn't act like historical revisionists and paint the Republicans as racists against Sotomayor. The silence of Hispanic "rights" groups about the Democrats' treatment of Estrada is galling, and they should be ashamed. Perhaps it was as then-Congressman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) claimed, Estrada wasn't Latino enough, which is what blacks said about Clarence Thomas. So, if Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are going to be called racists, no matter how carefully they ask questions, they should make the best of it.
That's just my thoughts...
Have a great day...
Jason Mattera, the cute spokesman of the Young America's Foundation, has made a few new friends on the blue blogosphere for posting on his Facebook page a thought about when Sonia gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, whether she'll have a tendency to shank fellow Justice Antonin Scalia. He admitted that he was mocking liberal's beliefs that Sotomayor's life gives her an insight into jurisprudence that seems to escape the white members, and the lone black on the bench. Liberals at Think Progress twirled like Diana Prince and became the Race Police, attacking Mattera for not serving in the military. This would not be laughable if most of the Democratic party voted for the military veteran over someone who thought military service was an anathema to the best interests of the United States...but they didn't. In fact, liberals view military service as a credible qualification, much like Bill Clinton's policy stances...whatever way the political winds were blowing.
Another person the Race Police must tackle with their Lasso of Diversity Training, is Debbie Schlussel, who refers to Sonia Sotomayor as "Justice J-Lo" and "So So." Don't ask me how that's racist, 'cause I dunno. Last I checked, the real J-Lo is a very attractive woman, and the pro-Sotomayor crowd should thank Schlussel for paying a less deserving woman such a high compliment, instead of projecting their own racist views on others. It shows that like his cabinet nominees, Obama can't vet his appointments to the US Supreme Court. Liberals know if a Republican president nominated someone with the record of Sotomayor, there'd be protesting in the streets. Hell, there was one Supreme Court nominee whose jurisprudence outshined So So's on every level, and he went down in defeat in 1987, with a vote of 42-58, with Snarlin' Arlen Specter (then R-PA) and that paragon of women's rights (*snicker*), Bob Packwood (R-OR), opposing.
This new epiphany that liberals have reached is remarkable and appreciated (/sarc). It's nice that they oppose killing public officials who disagree with them. It's also nice that liberals oppose promoting someone solely based on race, but did liberals have to destroy the careers of successful minorities along the way? During Senator Feinstein's Q & A with Sotomayor, she got all pissed off because Miguel Estrada's name reemerged in the debate. She claimed that Estrada would not answer questions, which is the same thing her union bosses said, and he was not as qualified as their dear Sonia. Senator Feinstein forgot to mention the hurdles they placed in front of Estrada, subjecting him to treatment no other federal court nominee had to face. According to an article written by Byron York in 2003, Democrats refused to send questions to the White House for the nominee to answer. They didn't want Estrada to answer any questions, but they also had nothing to hammer him about...
Estrada wasn't good at the Democrats' game of gotcha...
So Democrats shouldn't act like historical revisionists and paint the Republicans as racists against Sotomayor. The silence of Hispanic "rights" groups about the Democrats' treatment of Estrada is galling, and they should be ashamed. Perhaps it was as then-Congressman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) claimed, Estrada wasn't Latino enough, which is what blacks said about Clarence Thomas. So, if Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are going to be called racists, no matter how carefully they ask questions, they should make the best of it.
That's just my thoughts...
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)