- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,907
- Reaction score
- 60,363
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I do think its a bit of your partisanship, but I can understand it. Here's where I'm coming from on it.
My view is that by trying to call out the racist rhetoric its setting it up that anything even mentioning racist somehow equals racism. Its meant to make people walk on egg shells, so much so that LEGITIMATE concerns that may involve race are intimidated to keep quiet for fear of being labeled a racist because the Obama administration...after many on the left made it a point to use her sex and race as a bonus for her...deemed it now a non-issue.
Yes, definitely, if some dumbass slack jawed republican went "I don't want no freaking wet back on the supreme court" then by all means, smack him down for the ignorant bigot he is. However, if someone states "I worry that this woman's race affects her view of how the law should be handled so much that it leads me to believe she will be a judge that views cases not simply through the eyes of the law but through the eyes of her ethnic and sexual views" that to me is not racist, yet THAT is the kind of thing being said FAR MORE than the former, would you not agree? And if you do agree, then what's the point in the White House coming out and telling people to "Be careful" about saying stuff that everyone already knows to discount?
On the same token though...
If there are 10 qualified candidates, all equal, but you find that this womans views based on her race in regards to, for instance, punishment and the differences that they should be enforced perhaps on a rich white male over a poor latin female, then is that not as acceptable of a reason to deny her in exchange for one of those other 9 qualified candidates as it is to qualify her based on her race and gender in the name of diversity?
You might think the notion that people are bothered by that is moot because its not an issue. However, that does not make it racism. It just makes it a point you disagree with, much like people may disagree with the notion that somehow we specifically need to search and picked judges with "diversity" in mind simply to have a fair and just rule of law.
Some really good questions in there. On racism and what what WH said: certain members of the far right are using strong rhetoric on race in this issue. It walks a fine line, and intentionally. You will also note that the ones being the loudest are ones not in public office.
Further, there should be some evidence to base any concern that her ethnicity or gender would cause her to rule unfairly before making the assumption. I just got done reading the whole lecture where Sotomayer made her controversial statements, and nothing I see in there is to my mind a real concern. Talloulou disagrees tho, so I suppose I can see where some will think it is a possible issue. I have not yet seen any example of a ruling where her race or gender might have caused her to rule differently, though again I suspect talloulou is going to jump in here and disagree. I have done a whole lot of reading on this today, including the "New Haven" judgment(the original, not just the one paragraph appeals court decision she was involved in) and her speech, and a few other things, and I am having a hard time understanding the fuss.