• 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!

Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

Basically, the Jewish people seem to be highly gifted, as a whole. Here are some other statistics indicating that they are over represented in many prestigious fields of endeavor:

Jewish Statistics

To even know those stats feels a tad anti-Semitic. Someone who went to the trouble to find all that out... just sayin'

Not the poster, just the link.
 
As usual, Raw Story is twisting the facts to make it seem much worse than it is. If you read his statement in context, he's not saying that there are "too many jews" on the SC, but simply that it's disproportionately populated by jews, leading other groups to be underrepresented.

We've heard the exact same things said by people who said the court was disproportionately white, disproportionately male, or disproportionately catholic. No one seemed to get riled up over those statements, so I'm not sure why this is a big deal.
He didn't even say that it was disproportionately populated by Jews. He merely said that the Democrats weren't living up to their own standards of diversity.

This is a strawman thread.
 
Mpg he is a known Racist, and he did defend Hitler actions during WAR WORLD 2. I mean come on know he is saying we don't live up too diversity which is kind of mute point coming from a racist......... :roll:
 
No, it's absolutely not. "Too many" is a normative statement, while "disproportionately populated" is a factual statement.

Again, why doesn't anyone bat an eye when people point out that there are disproportionate numbers of whites, men, and Catholics on the court? Could it be because people such as yourself don't want to score political points against the speakers of those statements?

I don't particularly like Pat Buchanan and don't give a **** about the other things he's said. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy on display, regardless of who's being smeared.

Only we know why he said there was a disproportionate number of Jews on the court.

Pat Buchanan through WND said:
Are liberals anti-WASP?

"A chorus of black commentators and civic leaders has begun expressing frustration over (Elena) Kagan's hiring record as Harvard dean. From 2003 to 2009, 29 faculty members were hired: 28 were white and one was Asian-American."

CNN pundit Roland Martin slammed "Kagan's record on diversity as one that a 'white Republican U.S. president' would be criticized for."

This is an excerpt from the Washington Post about the rising anger in a black community, which voted 24-1 for Obama, that one of their own was once again passed over for the Supreme Court.

Not since Thurgood Marshall, 43 years ago, has a Democratic president chosen an African-American. The lone sitting black justice is Clarence Thomas, nominated by George H. W. Bush. And Thomas was made to run a gauntlet by Senate liberals.

Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.


If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.

Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?

Don't miss Buchanan's classic book "The Death of the West"

But while leaders in the black community may be upset, the folks who look more like the real targets of liberal bias are white Protestants and Catholics, who still constitute well over half of the U.S. population.

Not in living memory has a Democratic president nominated an Irish, Italian or Polish Catholic, though these ethnic communities once gave the party its greatest victories in the cities and states of the North.

What happened to the party of the Daleys, Rizzos and Rostenkowskis?

And not in nearly half a century has a Democratic president nominated a white Protestant or white Catholic man or woman.

The last was Byron "Whizzer" White, the all-American running back from the University of Colorado, nominated by his friend Jack Kennedy. White cast one of the only two votes against Roe v Wade.

What of the record of Republican presidents?

Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford made seven nominations. All were white Protestant males: Warren Burger, Clement Haynsworth, Harrold Carswell, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens.

The diversity Nixon sought was first to put a Southerner on the court. He succeeded in his third try, with Powell. And he sought to put the first woman on the court, but pulled back from nominating Judge Mildred Lillie of California when the American Bar Associated rated her unqualified.

With Ronald Reagan and Bush I came Republican diversity.

Reagan's first choice was Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman ever nominated. His second was Antonin Scalia, the first Italian-American. When his third nominee, Robert Bork, a Protestant, was rejected, Reagan chose Bork's Jewish colleague on the U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia, Douglas H. Ginsburg. When Douglas Ginsburg was pulled because of a marijuana incident in college, Reagan chose the Irish Catholic Anthony Kennedy.

George H. W. Bush picked David Souter, a Protestant from New Hampshire, and Clarence Thomas, the second African-American to sit. George W. Bush chose John Roberts, a Catholic; Harriet Miers, the first Evangelical Christian of our era; and Sam Alito, the second Italian Catholic.

If Kagan is confirmed, the Court will consist of three Jews and six Catholics (who represent not quite a fourth of the country), but not a single Protestant, though Protestants remain half the nation and our founding faith.

If Kagan is confirmed, three of the four justices nominated by Democratic presidents will be from New York City: Kagan from the Upper West Side, Sotomayor from the Bronx, Ruth Bader Ginsburg from Brooklyn. Breyer is from San Francisco.

What kind of diversity is this – either in geography or life experience?

While Sotomayor went to Yale Law School, the other three liberals went to Harvard, though Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated from Columbia. Seems a fairly narrow range for a party that once claimed to be America's party.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg tied for first in her class at Columbia, but neither Obama nominee is academically distinguished. Sotomayor called herself an "affirmative action baby" who, at Princeton, was urged to read children's books in the summer to improve her reading and writing skills. Kagan never served as a judge, never litigated a case before being named solicitor general, never wrote a book or anything else anyone has turned up that manifests real legal scholarship.

From her Princeton thesis on the sad demise of 20th-century socialism, to her tears at the defeat of the radical liberal Senate candidate Elizabeth Holtzman in 1980, to her hostility to the U.S. military on the Harvard campus while dean of the law school, Kagan has revealed herself to be one more Ivy League leftist anxious to use a lifetime seat on the court, winning the plaudits of her peers by imposing her ideology on a nation that has never voted for it.

Conservatives will not soon get another opportunity like this to take down Ivy League pretensions to represent and rule America.

Now I'm not saying that Buchanan is being his old racist self but one read of this article and we get the usual right wing complaints from racists apologists.

- The constant reminders of how Republicans broke some racial boundaries first.

- Bringing up Nixon's Southern Strategy.

- The reminder that Democrats use to have a stronger presence among those of European descent.

- Bringing up the few token times in the last 50 they've tried to reach out for the black vote.
-----------------------------

Now I'm not suggesting that Republicans are racist by a long stretch but why is it so easy for Republicans to bring up these little facts every time they want to bring up how 'racist' Democrats are?

- Can you imagine if a Liberal commentator talked about how Republicans use to be strongly affiliated WITH black populations until about 50 years ago?

- Can you imagine if a Liberal commentator said that while Storm Thurmond was a Democrat who opposed desegregation, he ended up being a Republican who still supported segregation in his death bed?

- Can you imagine if somebody from the left with a fan base half as big as that of Pat Buchanan said Nixon's only legacy as President today was making racist Democrats into racist Republicans?

---------------

Sure Pat Buchanan may have some sort of point - but let's not forget why he's trying to make that point.
 
- Can you imagine if a Liberal commentator talked about how Republicans use to be strongly affiliated WITH black populations until about 50 years ago?

- Can you imagine if a Liberal commentator said that while Storm Thurmond was a Democrat who opposed desegregation, he ended up being a Republican who still supported segregation in his death bed?

- Can you imagine if somebody from the left with a fan base half as big as that of Pat Buchanan said Nixon's only legacy as President today was making racist Democrats into racist Republicans?

I can imagine all of those things, and I can't imagine giving a ****. None is particularly controversial, and many have been said in one way or another.
 
I love how Paleocons are always bitching and whinning about identity politics but yet Buchanan is bitching about the fact she's a jew. Then again it is Pat Buchanan so I really shouldnt be that surprised. Its not like there are other things to complain about; anti-second amendment, not too keen on the first to name two. Stay classy asshole

Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench | Raw Story
sometimes you feel like a nut.....!

it's always too bad when buchanan says something like this, because on some issues i agree with him. i never would have voted for him, nevertheless, i kinda like him.
 
Mpg he is a known Racist, and he did defend Hitler actions during WAR WORLD 2. I mean come on know he is saying we don't live up too diversity which is kind of mute point coming from a racist......... :roll:
I don't know enough about him to say whether or not he is a racist, but there is nothing racist about what he's saying here. The OP is dishonest.
 
sometimes you feel like a nut.....!

it's always too bad when buchanan says something like this, because on some issues i agree with him. i never would have voted for him, nevertheless, i kinda like him.

He is a old relic of the Nixon era and the Cold War, the only view his is agreeable on is his foreign policy. Hes anti-free trade, pro-drug war and a social statist.
 
sometimes you feel like a nut.....!

it's always too bad when buchanan says something like this, because on some issues i agree with him. i never would have voted for him, nevertheless, i kinda like him.

Yea, when he screws up, he puts his foot in his mouth all the way up to his knee. :mrgreen:
 
:rofl

So when Buchanan says that Jews are disproportionately represented on the SC, that's bigotry, but when you say "there are too many catholics on the SC," that's not?

First, you should stop lying about what I've said.

Go find my post where I claimed Buchanan said something bigoted.

You can't because you're lying about me saying that.

OK now you can apologize for lying about what I said.

I ****ing hate it when people lie about me.

DON'T do it again.
 
I don't know enough about him to say whether or not he is a racist, but there is nothing racist about what he's saying here. The OP is dishonest.

There's a lot of dishonesty in this thread.
 
There's a lot of dishonesty in this thread.

If you are going to be so touchy you are going to PM people over a "thank you," you mite want to re-think being a member of this message board.

#1 He did not say you called anyone a bigot. This includes Pat Robertson.
#2 RightinNYC did not in any way lie about anything in the post you are referring to.

Before you call a Mod team member a liar or try to slander anyone for that matter, you mite want to actually KNOW and UNDERSTAND what he said BEFORE sending private messages to people and calling him a liar.
 
First, you should stop lying about what I've said.

Go find my post where I claimed Buchanan said something bigoted.

You can't because you're lying about me saying that.

OK now you can apologize for lying about what I said.

I ****ing hate it when people lie about me.

DON'T do it again.

1) Each post before you had been claiming that this statement was bigoted in one way or another. I had argued that it was not. You entered the thread and took the side of those who had been arguing that it was, going so far as to claim that I was refusing to see the truth of their claims.

You can say that that doesn't mean you think that what Buchanan said was bigoted, but it seems fairly logical to conclude that you were in accordance with their views.

2) Let's pretend that that's not what you meant - so you think that what Buchanan said was perfectly fine? Given that you expressed an identical sentiment, I'd be interested in your response.
 
Last edited:
1) Each post before you had been claiming that this statement was bigoted in one way or another. I had argued that it was not. You entered the thread and took the side of those who had been arguing that it was, going so far as to claim that I was refusing to see the truth of their claims.

You can say that that doesn't mean you think that what Buchanan said was bigoted, but it seems like a fairly logical conclusion from my part.

2) Let's pretend that that's not what you meant - so you think that what Buchanan said was perfectly fine? Given that you expressed an identical sentiment, I'd be interested in your response.

Now you're going to continue lying about what I said. Isn't that nice.

Show me the post where I took sides.

Please, go find it and post it here so we can all see it.

I'm not interested in discussing this any further with a person who starts out by lying about what I said, and has three people thanking him for the lies, with the lap dog claiming I don't understand what you've posted.

LOL!!!

Please.

Pathetic.

You can apologize for lying about my posts, and then I'll start a discussion with you, answering your questions about the topic.

But I won't discuss this or anything with a liar.
 
:rofl

So when Buchanan says that Jews are disproportionately represented on the SC, that's bigotry, but when you say "there are too many catholics on the SC," that's not?

There's a lot of dishonesty in this thread.

Please point out where in the above post he said you called anyone a bigot?

Oh look, I guess he didn't. :roll:
 
Please point out where in the above post he said you called anyone a bigot?

Oh look, I guess he didn't. :roll:

He already admitted that he posted it because he claims I took sides with the people claiming it was bigoted.

Too late buddy. LOL!

Oh look, I guess he did.
 
Now you're going to continue lying about what I said. Isn't that nice.

Show me the post where I took sides.

Please, go find it and post it here so we can all see it.

Here you go:

YOU said:
I read the whole thread. I saw all the people trying to show you how what Buchanen said most definitely means there are too many Jews on the SC if Kagan gets on. And how you keep denying it over and over.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-jews-supreme-court-bench.html#post1058750861

I hope that clears this up for you.

I'm not interested in discussing this any further with a person who starts out by lying about what I said, and has three people thanking him for the lies, with the lap dog claiming I don't understand what you've posted.

LOL!!!

Please.

Pathetic.

You can apologize for lying about my posts, and then I'll start a discussion with you, answering your questions about the topic.

But I won't discuss this or anything with a liar.

u mad?
 

Yes, this is what I said:

I read the whole thread. I saw all the people trying to show you how what Buchanen said most definitely means there are too many Jews on the SC if Kagan gets on. And how you keep denying it over and over.

1. There are too many catholics on the SC.
2. There should be more women.
3. And a non-believer would be good too.

Now where do I say that what Buchanan said is bigoted?

Are you seriously going to keep telling that lie?
 
Post the quote.

Or stop lying.

So when Buchanan says that Jews are disproportionately represented on the SC, that's bigotry, but when you say "there are too many catholics on the SC," that's not?

He was asking a question. So when PB says it, it is bigotry. But when YOU SAY there are to many Catholics it's not?

I can't make plain English any simpler for you.
 
Yes, this is what I said:



Now where do I say that what Buchanan said is bigoted?

Are you seriously going to keep telling that lie?

Er, you already asked this question. I responded as follows:

RightinNYC said:
1) Each post before you had been claiming that this statement was bigoted in one way or another. I had argued that it was not. You entered the thread and took the side of those who had been arguing that it was, going so far as to claim that I was refusing to see the truth of their claims.

You can say that that doesn't mean you think that what Buchanan said was bigoted, but it seems fairly logical to conclude that you were in accordance with their views.

2) Let's pretend that that's not what you meant - so you think that what Buchanan said was perfectly fine? Given that you expressed an identical sentiment, I'd be interested in your response.

You then said:

You said:
Now you're going to continue lying about what I said. Isn't that nice.

Show me the post where I took sides.

Please, go find it and post it here so we can all see it.

I responded by linking you to the post in question, and then you responded by copy/pasting the exact thing back at me and asking your original question again.


I'm beginning to think we've entered some sort of vortex.
 
Er, you already asked this question. I responded as follows:



You then said:



I responded by linking you to the post in question, and then you responded by copy/pasting the exact thing back at me and asking your original question again.


I'm beginning to think we've entered some sort of vortex.

Yes, you keep posting the same old quotes because you can't find the one where I said Buchanan was bigoted.....BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY IT.

How about you and your attack dog stop telling this lie?
 
Yes, you keep posting the same old quotes because you can't find the one where I said Buchanan was bigoted.....BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY IT.

How about you and your attack dog stop telling this lie?

How hard is this to understand?

Each post before you had been claiming that this statement was bigoted in one way or another. I had argued that it was not. You entered the thread and took the side of those who had been arguing that it was, going so far as to claim that I was refusing to see the truth of their claims.

You can say that that doesn't mean you think that what Buchanan said was bigoted, but it seems fairly logical to conclude that you were in accordance with their views.
 
So when Buchanan says that Jews are disproportionately represented on the SC, that's bigotry, but when you say "there are too many catholics on the SC," that's not?

He was asking a question. So when PB says it, it is bigotry. But when YOU SAY there are to many Catholics it's not?

I can't make plain English any simpler for you.

He said I claimed Buchanan was bigoted. I can't make plain English any simpler for you.

You entered the thread and took the side of those who had been arguing that it was (bigoted)

I didn't take any side at all.

Does it feel good to lie so much? I would think it would be very uncomfortable.
 
Back
Top Bottom