• 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

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the US population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats," Buchanan wrote in a column for WorldNetDaily on Friday. "Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?"

In his column, Buchanan argued the Democrats have been hypocritical in claiming to be the party of ethnic and racial diversity because their Supreme Court picks don't reflect the US's ethnic and religious breakdown.

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
 
[picard-facepalm.jpg]

This is a stupid argument on SO many levels.
 
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.
 
"If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the US population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats," Buchanan wrote in a column for WorldNetDaily on Friday. "Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?"


That's very funny, considering that females comprise more than half the US population... and what's our representation in government looking like?

Whereas white Christian males comprise less than 40% of the US population, and they're running everything.
Oh, boo hoo. Poor white Christian males.
They seem to be ever-so-slowly losing their advantage.
At this rate, they may lose their edge entirely by, oh... the year 2510. :roll:
 
That's very funny, considering that females comprise more than half the US population... and what's our representation in government looking like?

Whereas white Christian males comprise less than 40% of the US population, and they're running everything.

True, President McCain, House Speaker Hastert, and Attorney General Rove do have a deathgrip on the country's operations.
 
True, President McCain, House Speaker Hastert, and Attorney General Rove do have a deathgrip on the country's operations.

:rofl
If you are trying to argue that white christian men don't control this country, well that is just hilarious, and I hope you are joking.
 
:rofl
If you are trying to argue that white christian men don't control this country, well that is just hilarious, and I hope you are joking.

I'm pointing out the foolishness in claiming that "white christian men are running everything" while neither the president nor the speaker of the house nor the attorney general fits into that category.

Are there a disproportionate number of white christian men in positions of authority? Sure. Does that mean they're "running everything"? No.
 
I'm pointing out the foolishness in claiming that "white christian men are running everything" while neither the president nor the speaker of the house nor the attorney general fits into that category.

Are there a disproportionate number of white christian men in positions of authority? Sure. Does that mean they're "running everything"? No.

They are not running everything, but they control a major part of our country.
 
.... 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.
This is bizarre doublespeak.

"too many Jews" IS the same as "disproportionately populated by Jews".
"too many Jews" is a relative statement of course. Relative to the total number.. Proportionally.
ergo, the Same.

It's apologist Crap for a man who is a raging anti-semite and who's quite consistent hobby is defending ex-Nazi prison guards.

MSNBC removes Buchanan column defending Hitler
September 3, 2009
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/09...-remove-pat-buchanans-column-defending-hitler
-
-
 
Last edited:
This is bizarre doublespeak.

"too many Jews" IS the same as "disproportionately populated by Jews".
"too many Jews" is a relative statement of course. Relative to the total number.. Proportionally.
ergo, the Same.

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?


It's apologist Crap for a man who is a raging anti-semite and who's quite consistent hobby is defending ex-Nazi prison guards.

MSNBC removes Buchanan column defending Hitler
September 3, 2009
MSNBC removes Buchanan column defending Hitler | JTA - Jewish & Israel News
-
-

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.
 
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.

Umm for a couple reasons:
1. White males are not an historically oppressed group.
2. Pat Buchanan is not on record making many other nasty comments about white males.

If you don't see why this is offensive, then it's because you are choosing to cover your eyes to it.
 
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.

There is a disproportionate amount of sophistry in your reply.
 
Umm for a couple reasons:
1. White males are not an historically oppressed group.
2. Pat Buchanan is not on record making many other nasty comments about white males.

If you don't see why this is offensive, then it's because you are choosing to cover your eyes to it.

There is a disproportionate amount of sophistry in your reply.

Read the actual article rather than the Raw Story summary: Are liberals anti-WASP?

It's standard partisan crap, directed at accusing the left of being bigoted against Christians while pushing their own twisted version of diversity. It's not particularly well written, nor is it insightful. However, nothing in that article even comes close to claiming that there are "too many Jews" in the way that people in this thread are claiming.

Activists on the left said nearly identical things about Catholics when Roberts and Alito were nominated, but nobody seemed to give a **** then.
 
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?
BS!
"Too many" is a Relative statement, OBVIOUSLY, "too many" relative to the total number
and he says in the article in question... lest there be any doubt:

"...If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2% of the U.S. population, will have 33% of the Supreme Court seats.
Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?..."


So he IS saying "Too many" relative to the total/IN PERCENT. Percent is NOT 'Nominative', it's Relative.
And even without his specifically stated percent.... There is no "too many" without knowing there are Nine total.

I believe the current term of art is "Duh!".

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.
And I don't care who on the board says it, a mod or not. I'll point out Doublespeak when I see it.
-
 
Last edited:
BS!
"Too many" is a Relative statement, OBVIOUSLY, ("too many" relative to the total number) and he says inj the article in question... lest there be any doubt:

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

Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?..."


So he IS saying "Too many" relative to the total. There is no "too many" without knowing there are Nine.
I believe the current term of art is "Duh!".

How hard is this to understand?

"If Alito is confirmed, Catholics, who represent less than 24% of the country, will have a majority of the seats on the Supreme Court."

1) Is that a statement of fact or is it a bigoted slur against Catholics?
2) How is that statement different from Buchanan's statement, if at all?

And I don't care who on the board says it, a mod or not. I'll point out 100% Dishonest Doublespeak when I see it.

And I'll point out poorly reasoned faux outrage wherever I see it.
 
How hard is this to understand?

"If Alito is confirmed, Catholics, who represent less than 24% of the country, will have a majority of the seats on the Supreme Court."

1) Is that a statement of fact or is it a bigoted slur against Catholics?
2) How is that statement different from Buchanan's statement, if at all?

And I'll point out poorly reasoned faux outrage wherever I see it.
And how is this a Reply to what I said.. Busting your BS wide open.

His statement wasn't just nominative, it was specifically/in percent.. Relative.
And as I said, even if so-called 'nominative'. It's senseless without knowing there are 9 Justices, which Everyone does. "Too many" doesn't stand alone, 'nominatively'.

I, and obviously others, find you not only wrong, which is acceptable, but Disingenuous, which Isn't for a mod.

EDIT: I'm Finished with this now. Post on tho.
-
 
Last edited:
And how is this a Reply to what I said.. Busting your BS wide open.

His statement wasn't just nominative, it was specifically/in percent.. Relative.
And as I said, even if so-called 'nominative'... it' senseless without knowing there are 9 Justices. "Too many" doesn't stand alone, 'nominatively'.

I don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to say here.

I and obviously others find you not only wrong, which is acceptable, but Disingenuous, which Isn't for a mod.

I'm sorry that you feel that way.
 
....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.....

Which means there are too many Jews.
 
Which means there are too many Jews.

Please read the rest of the thread.

No, it's absolutely not. "Too many" is a normative statement, while "disproportionately populated" is a factual statement.

It's standard partisan crap, directed at accusing the left of being bigoted against Christians while pushing their own twisted version of diversity. It's not particularly well written, nor is it insightful. However, nothing in that article even comes close to claiming that there are "too many Jews" in the way that people in this thread are claiming.

I'll ask you the same questions that mbig has declined to answer:

"If Alito is confirmed, Catholics, who represent less than 24% of the country, will have a majority of the seats on the Supreme Court."

1) Is that a statement of fact or is it a bigoted slur against Catholics?
2) How is that statement different from Buchanan's statement, if at all?
 
Please read the rest of the thread.





I'll ask you the same questions that mbig has declined to answer:

"If Alito is confirmed, Catholics, who represent less than 24% of the country, will have a majority of the seats on the Supreme Court."

1) Is that a statement of fact or is it a bigoted slur against Catholics?
2) How is that statement different from Buchanan's statement, if at all?

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.
 
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.

: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?
 
Read the actual article rather than the Raw Story summary: Are liberals anti-WASP?

It's standard partisan crap, directed at accusing the left of being bigoted against Christians while pushing their own twisted version of diversity. It's not particularly well written, nor is it insightful. However, nothing in that article even comes close to claiming that there are "too many Jews" in the way that people in this thread are claiming.

OK, I read the article. With the context. And it's still every bit as offensive. Had I come across that article before I saw this thread and saw Pat Buchanan, of all people, lamenting the Jew-ification of the Supreme Court (which is what he did), yes it would be offensive.

RightinNYC said:
Activists on the left said nearly identical things about Catholics when Roberts and Alito were nominated, but nobody seemed to give a **** then.

Some female Democratic senator (I think Diane Feinstein) asked Roberts during his confirmation hearing if his religion would prevent him from being impartial on any abortion cases that might come before the court. She kicked up quite a ****storm over that comment, and deservedly so.
 
OK, I read the article. With the context. And it's still every bit as offensive. Had I come across that article before I saw this thread and saw Pat Buchanan, of all people, lamenting the Jew-ification of the Supreme Court (which is what he did), yes it would be offensive.

I just don't see how it's offensive, unless you're willing to make the huge leap from "there are a disproportionate number of jews on the SC" to "jews are bad people and should not be on the SC." Buchanan may well be a terrible person, but this article isn't a reason why.

Again, this exact same sentiment has been expressed many times over in the past. No one cared then, and I don't know why anyone should care now.

Alito Would Create Catholic Majority on Top Court - ABC News

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/politics/politicsspecial1/01religion.html

Court Could Tip to Catholic Majority - washingtonpost.com

And again, I ask about this:

"If Alito is confirmed, Catholics, who represent less than 24% of the country, will have a majority of the seats on the Supreme Court."

1) Is that a statement of fact or is it a bigoted slur against Catholics?
2) How is that statement different from Buchanan's statement, if at all?

Some female Democratic senator (I think Diane Feinstein) asked Roberts during his confirmation hearing if his religion would prevent him from being impartial on any abortion cases that might come before the court. She kicked up quite a ****storm over that comment, and deservedly so.

I don't find that particularly offensive either, but even so, that is entirely different from what Buchanan said. There's a world of difference between implying that someone's religion renders them unable to rule fairly and simply noting that one group is disproportionately represented.
 
I just don't see how it's offensive, unless you're willing to make the huge leap from "there are a disproportionate number of jews on the SC" to "jews are bad people and should not be on the SC." Buchanan may well be a terrible person, but this article isn't a reason why.

Again, this exact same sentiment has been expressed many times over in the past. No one cared then, and I don't know why anyone should care now.

Alito Would Create Catholic Majority on Top Court - ABC News

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/politics/politicsspecial1/01religion.html

Court Could Tip to Catholic Majority - washingtonpost.com

And again, I ask about this:

"If Alito is confirmed, Catholics, who represent less than 24% of the country, will have a majority of the seats on the Supreme Court."

1) Is that a statement of fact or is it a bigoted slur against Catholics?
2) How is that statement different from Buchanan's statement, if at all?

Those articles seem to be pretty even-handed. How are they different from Buchanan? Buchanan was clearly LAMENTING the fact that there were so many Jews on the court, not merely observing it. After he pointed it out, his very next sentence was "Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?"

RightinNYC said:
I don't find that particularly offensive either, but even so, that is entirely different from what Buchanan said. There's a world of difference between implying that someone's religion renders them unable to rule fairly and simply noting that one group is disproportionately represented.

If Buchanan had authored a piece impartially showing the statistics of various demographic groups on the court, that would be one thing (although I'd probably view anything Pat Buchanan has to say about Jews with suspicion given his past record). But when it's part of an article entitled "Are liberals anti-WASP?" and is followed up with "Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?" I think it's pretty clear that he's sorry there will be yet another Jew on the court.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom