• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sotomayor cool under Republican grilling

Lindsey Graham's comment seemed rather misguided, and is the latest example of a tired rightist claim that references to various ethnic and racial groups ought to be interchangeable with references to whites. But the reality is simply that there's a homogeneity in cultural and economic conditions for ethnic and racial minorities in the U.S. that does not exist for the white majority, and therefore a greater propensity for members of minority groups to be directly influenced by the specific conditions that they find themselves in. This has nothing to do with inherent genetic differences, but mere environmental differences. Just as a black man would have acquired a greater perspective on the plights of blacks in times past and a Mexican immigrants on the plights of braceros, it's not unreasonable to expect a Puerto Rican to acquire a unique perspective that the majority of whites would be unable to, not because of some innate difference, but merely because of their placement in different environmental conditions. :shrug:

F107HyperSabr said:
A couple pairs of those thighs look as if they could crunch you but two of them do appear to have intelligent asses. And that is not meant to be an oxymoron. That's my on the street political opinion.
Click to expand...

That's the point, actually, and why the two on the right seem more appealing to me. I don't bear much ethnic and racial similarity to many "Latinos," but we've been raised in a somewhat similar culture (though I think there's evolutionary origins for this sentiment), and we generally don't object to large thighs and asses. Quite the opposite, in fact. :rofl
 
F107HyperSabr said:
That "latina" comment of hers was porrly stated but if anyone does posses any intellectual honesty and is not just puking partisan poop read it within the context that it was said in and it is not racist or sexist. But we all know that the partisans will spin it in the worst possible way. The Democrats and the left did just that with Clarence de Thomas's foibles. This is just political theatre but I hope that not too much horse pockey will fall in this dog and pony show !!!
Click to expand...


I'd really like to know how her comment, that a "wise latina would come to a better decision than a white male" could not be construed as racially biased?

If anyone actually thinks that if, let's say Scalia, had ever been found to have said "a wise white man would make better decisions that a hispanic female", that he would not have been crucified (mediawise and politically) as a racist pig?

My opinions are honest, not partisan hackery. I despise the Republican party as a whole only slightly less than I do the Democrat party.
 
Goshin said:
I'd really like to know how her comment, that a "wise latina would come to a better decision than a white male" could not be construed as racially biased?

If anyone actually thinks that if, let's say Scalia, had ever been found to have said "a wise white man would make better decisions that a hispanic female", that he would not have been crucified (mediawise and politically) as a racist pig?

My opinions are honest, not partisan hackery. I despise the Republican party as a whole only slightly less than I do the Democrat party.
Click to expand...

I do not have the quote handy but Scalia did say that his background of having his people experience the prejudice of ethic slurs, ethnic hatred and roadblocks to emplyment did give him a diferent view. Try to find that quote. I have to run a virus program now but I will try to find it since I would love to wave it in afew faces- intellectually of course and in good fun.
 
Goshin said:
I'd really like to know how her comment, that a "wise latina would come to a better decision than a white male" could not be construed as racially biased?

If anyone actually thinks that if, let's say Scalia, had ever been found to have said "a wise white man would make better decisions that a hispanic female", that he would not have been crucified (mediawise and politically) as a racist pig?

My opinions are honest, not partisan hackery. I despise the Republican party as a whole only slightly less than I do the Democrat party.
Click to expand...

BTW The partisanship I was referring to was of the Senators not you!!!
 
F107HyperSabr said:
I do not have the quote handy but Scalia did say that his background of having his people experience the prejudice of ethic slurs, ethnic hatred and roadblocks to emplyment did give him a diferent view. Try to find that quote. I have to run a virus program now but I will try to find it since I would love to wave it in afew faces- intellectually of course and in good fun.
Click to expand...

Saying "my experiences as a _____ have given me perspective" is one thing. In one manner or another, we all have perspectives shaped by our life experiences.

I'd have to assert that it is very different if any SCOTUS candidate, or any politician, saying that "X race would make better decisions than Y race" would be politically crucified...IF the politician/judge/etc were white. I can't see it as anything but a double-standard, and in our society that alleges its worship of racial equality I find that an appalling hypocrisy.
 
aps said:
That's the problem. Tit for tat. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...
I just know if I would ever trade a tit for a tat. Nah, it just isn't happening.
 
Councilman said:
Sotomayor cool under Republican grilling | Reuters
Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:53pm EDT
Reuters

By Andrew Quinn and James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor fended off Republican attacks on Tuesday, saying "diversity on the bench is good for America" and promising rulings based on law, not racial bias.

Grilled by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor -- who would become the first Hispanic on the U.S. top court -- coolly explained the context for one of her most controversial comments: that a "wise Latina" might reach a better legal decision than a white man.

==========================================================
The lies she has been telling from the moment she was sworn in alone should disqualify her from the Judges position she currently holds let alone from the Supreme Court. Her record on the bench, her own statements, her affiliation with Racist organizations all largely being glossed or denied out right and she's being given a pass because the Republicans seriously fear being called racists if they go around asking real questions and then hold her to the same standard Ted Kennedy with Robert Bork back in 1986. Oh wait. Ted Kennedy made up all the lies he spewed from the Senate floor to discredit Bork. Everything that Kennedy said was proved latter to be lies but by then the Liberals got their way and the term Borked was born. So we need to keep our heads above the low level Kennedy set ans stick to the truth of her own record not to Bork her. No but to point out the facts and the truth before the unthinking Liberals ignore the truth and facts and rubber stamp her nomination because it's the Barack thing to do.
Click to expand...

"Unless you have a complete meltdown, you’re going to get confirmed," -- Senator Graham

Dang if they keep up this grilling they might have to threaten the nuclear option. :roll:
 
Something that bothers me with one of the few answers I caught was in reguards to the 2nd amendment. She never (that I saw) said anything about the 2nd amendment protecting the rights of citizens to carry guns but instead skirts around a direct answer and say something like, " I know how important the 2nd amendment is to alot of americans".
 
Agnapostate said:
Lindsey Graham's comment seemed rather misguided, and is the latest example of a tired rightist claim that references to various ethnic and racial groups ought to be interchangeable with references to whites. But the reality is simply that there's a homogeneity in cultural and economic conditions for ethnic and racial minorities in the U.S. that does not exist for the white majority, and therefore a greater propensity for members of minority groups to be directly influenced by the specific conditions that they find themselves in. This has nothing to do with inherent genetic differences, but mere environmental differences. Just as a black man would have acquired a greater perspective on the plights of blacks in times past and a Mexican immigrants on the plights of braceros, it's not unreasonable to expect a Puerto Rican to acquire a unique perspective that the majority of whites would be unable to, not because of some innate difference, but merely because of their placement in different environmental conditions. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Environmental differences; such as? You do know that Puerto Ricans have full U.S. citizenship right? She's not even from Puerto Rico she's from the Bronx. But ya she's got her finger right on the pulse of Latino Americans. :roll:
 
sam_w said:
The confirmation hearings of today have become more of a photo-op and chance for Senators to connect with their constituency. The last 4 picks (Alito, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer) learned how to properly give an answer without answering the question. Which is actually quite fair considering that the Senate is not truly probing, but rather campaigning. I understand, and agree with the idea of having open hearings. But you do have to wonder if we would get a different result should the hearings be closed?

Lindsey Graham was quite honest in his assessment yesterday when he said elections have consequences, and more specifically this is liberal-conservative politics. Kudos to Graham for honesty, for this is how the system works.
Click to expand...

Great post.

The thread should have ended right there. But the hyper-partisans couldn't help themselves.

She's a qualified jurist. Left of center. Everyone gets on TV. Thank you, good night.
 
Agent Ferris said:
Environmental differences; such as? You do know that Puerto Ricans have full U.S. citizenship right? She's not even from Puerto Rico she's from the Bronx. But ya she's got her finger right on the pulse of Latino Americans. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'll have to search for research regarding Puerto Ricans, but it's not exactly a well-hidden fact that there's rather limited social mobility for "Latino" Americans in general. For example, we could consult Livingston and Kahn's An American dream unfulfilled: The limited mobility of Mexican Americans.

Immigrant men and women report lower wages than their second– and third–generation counterparts, but once human capital controls are added, the wage pattern becomes one of steady decline across generations for men, and stagnation or marginal decline across generations for women.
Click to expand...

The reality that there's generally different activities and general lifestyles experienced by different ethnic and racial groups seems an indisputable fact. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
WillRockwell said:
Yeh, I'd love to see the Repugs attack Sodomayor, and instantly lose every potential vote from Hispanic Americans. They are working on it, though.
Click to expand...

They can't help but let their racial leanings out into the open when they ask their questions. It's amazing. They really can't find anything to go after given her distinguished record, so they are flailing in the wind.
 
WillRockwell said:
Yeh, I'd love to see the Repugs attack Sodomayor, and instantly lose every potential vote from Hispanic Americans. They are working on it, though.
Click to expand...

Contrary to what you may believe, "Hispanics" are not the intellectual equivalent of a bee hive. They are a diverse group of individuals with differing opinions - they don't just unite becuase of a perceived verbal attack on a woman who just happens to be hispanic.
 
Ethereal said:
Contrary to what you may believe, "Hispanics" are not the intellectual equivalent of a bee hive. They are a diverse group of individuals with differing opinions - they don't just unite becuase of a perceived verbal attack on a woman who just happens to be hispanic.
Click to expand...

If one justone intelligent Hispanic voted for me vs. a whole bee hive, I would consider my life to be fulfilled. I would loose the election but I would have at least one justone to have a fulfilling conversation about things with.









Not with Sotomayor.
 
Agnapostate said:
I'll have to search for research regarding Puerto Ricans, but it's not exactly a well-hidden fact that there's rather limited social mobility for "Latino" Americans in general.
Click to expand...

Ya limited to Princeton full scholarships and SCOTUS nominations.


For example, we could consult Livingston and Kahn's An American dream unfulfilled: The limited mobility of Mexican Americans.

The reality that there's generally different activities and general lifestyles experienced by different ethnic and racial groups seems an indisputable fact. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Mexican Americans like Alberto Gonzalez? :roll: Do you even grasp the concept of pluralism?
 
Last edited:
Agnapostate said:
You've chosen to limit your analysis to comments about anecdotal cases, which tells us nothing about the general population. The statistical analysis of a large data set that I provided might do that, though.
Click to expand...

Your large data set link breaks but even if it doesn't it's assessment is completely defeated by the so called "anecdotal evidence" or as we here outside of theoreticalcville like to call them; case studies and/or real world examples but thanks for the statistics, I think I'll do a similar study using a similar irrelevant quantifier; such as, eye color. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
Your large data set link breaks but even if it doesn't it's assessment is completely defeated by the so called "anecdotal evidence" or as we here outside of theoreticalcville like to call them; case studies and/or real world examples but thanks for the statistics, I think I'll do a similar study using a similar irrelevant quantifier; such as, eye color. :roll:
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that I see nothing wrong with the link, I do have to note the irony of you calling empirical research "theoretical." :rofl

That said, you've merely cited anecdotal and isolated cases with no relevance whatsoever to the vast majority of the population in question, whereas my analysis is based on integration of those large data sets. It's not, for example, based on my own experiences, since that would be similarly anecdotal. I attribute this excessive reliance on anecdotal reports a consequence of the fact that existing empirical research does not support your perspective. As it were, Goshin often makes the same error, and did so quite recently when he cited Barack Obama as an example of the unnecessariness of affirmative action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom