There are three reasons why people (Republics) are freaking out about Sotomayor's one sentence

[EFerrari]

out of a ten minute speech about diversity on the bench where she has the temerity to say that a Latina might have something special to offer because she brings first hand experience with discrimination to discrimination cases:

1. They hate hearing that minorities have their own, different experience in America because difference challenges their authoritarian world view simply by being different. These are the same people who still resent the fact that women are allowed to drive and to vote.

2. They are afraid their own bigotry will be turned back on them because reciprocal punishment is fundamental to their binary thinking and so, naturally, what they expect from brown people. If there were no left wing in this country, the right wing would have to invent it in order to have someone to project their poison all over. (Oh, wait . . .)

3. They want to shut down the discussion, ironically a speech entitled "A Latina Judge's Voice", because it disrupts their idea of America where all the girls are blond and all the men are in charge and power always speaks in the same voice -- which sounds a little like Charleton Heston to them, presumably.

And the Republics are playing these fears and hatreds like a violin. They've taken the same gesture that mentors speaking to college classes always make to their audience -- Yes, you have something to offer -- and have twisted it into the monster under the American bed. Rarely do we get to see such a fulsome racist reaction to the empowerment of women or minorities whipped up so transparently by the party who is barely surviving on rumors of leprous illegals and Obama's birth certificate.

I hope this judge kicks their @ss once she gets on that bench.

[Lasher]

1. 4. She wasn't nominated by a Republican president.

This also covers reasons 1 thru 3.

[EFerrari]

2. Exactly. The 1-3 is just how they get people to freak out like

someone is coming for their wimin and wallet.

[Idealism]

3. But E, they'll take our jobs!

[EFerrari]

7. I'm not sitting on the Supreme Court, so I'm pretty safe!

lol

:)

[knitter4democracy]

26. Funny thing is, she was. The first time, anyway.

Those GOPers with balls should be getting in line with the Dems to have a good, mainly centrist judge on the bench, saying if she was good enough for Bush I, she's good enough now.

[EFerrari]

32. But wouldn't that require summoning a memory, which is the opposite

of getting people to fear what is before them immediately?

The Republican "party" has no interest in having their base activate their experience, either. :)

[The Magistrate]

4. A Very Good Analysis, Ma'am

"Your fear of someone is the measure of the wrong you have done them."

[EFerrari]

10. Could Obama have made a more provocative choice?

I think not. Good for him!

[Lasher]

13. Well I think he could have.

Good that she's a latina, that's for sure. But I have come to believe that she is actually a centrist and I was hoping for someone more to the left to help counter Junior's right wing appointments.

[EFerrari]

14. It's hard to know what happens after she gets the seat.

[Lasher]

16. Yes that's true.

Don't want to rain on the parade. I am certain she will be confirmed anyway. Let's have this discussion another day, OK?

Peace, it's still a good idea.

:hippie:

[EFerrari]

30. I'm not Miss Cleo but I bet Sotomayor will not be a disappointment.

It's hard to see how anyone who doesn't position them self as a centrist would expect to get ahead in this climate.

I don't know very much about her but do remember my aunt talking about her about 15 years ago. My Aunt Grace never made it to law school, she was an immigrant and there was no time, let alone money, for that. But, she did the next best thing and became the first official Spanish interpreter for the city and county here in the courts. Sotomayor reminds me of Grace -- whom you'd need a tank to shake once she felt she was on firm ground. lol

We'll see. :)

[spooky3]

33. May I add ...

"and the power they have or may obtain."

[EFerrari]

35. Yes. And in addition to just being a fine choice for the Court

this was a brilliant choice by Obama because the bait was irresistible to the Thuggery.

[spooky3]

46. Hmm. I had not thought about that angle. Good point.

I do find it ironic (and quite typical of the right wing) that at the same time they sling outrageous amounts of mud at Sotomayor, they also claim that everyone will tiptoe around her, handle her with kid gloves, etc., because she is not a white non-Hispanic male. Given how they treated H. Clinton, this is deja vu.

[retread]

5. One explanation for all three reasons you give. They are bigots. n/t

[Bluebear]

6. Verdad.

[EFerrari]

27. I think the fastest way to make their brains explode is just to chant a list

of minorities. The next battle in the War on Christmas, let's rewrite The 12 Days. :evilgrin:

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Powerful points, but what really struck me was your little throwaway line...

"If there were no left wing in this country, the right wing would have to invent it in order to have someone to project their poison all over. (Oh, wait . . .)"

Any country in which the right can get away with portraying the likes of Obama, the Clintons, and Sotomayor as "far left" clearly has no functioning left wing.

[EFerrari]

11. I think we're missing the boat. We should just start talking as if

what we want is already true. The War on Terra is over, Bush is going to jail, universal health care has been a long time coming. :shrug:

[omega minimo]

15. Be careful, EF

Don't wanna get tarred with the co-creative brush....... :yoiks:


Hey, I've got one! It's the 21st Century!!


kR

[EFerrari]

19. When we do it, it's just New Age positivism.

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

20. Like I say

watch out for the haters. They mean business. :hide:

[EFerrari]

21. LOL!

[baldguy]

9. Just like their criticism of The Magic Negro - they've got nothing else.

[EFerrari]

12. And they're losing Latino and women's votes every day while they do this.

Yes!

[Joe the Liberal]

17. They can't stand seeing hispanics getting ahead in life......

or anyone who is'nt white for that matter.

[EFerrari]

18. I think that Republicans don't like to see ANYONE else getting ahead.

And that includes their own family. Creepy.

[Karenina]

23. Crabs in a barrel... n/t

[EFerrari]

24. That's perfect. Must be what it is like to grow up with people like that. n/t

[northernlights]

34. bingo

my parents were/are rethugs. Sabotaged my sisters and I in every way that they could. They honestly couldn't stand to see us do as well as they did, never mind better. Total assholes; they crap all over everything.

[EFerrari]

36. I'm very sorry you had to go through that.

At least when we're grown up, we can recruit people to be in our "families" who know and can do better.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

48. Sounds like my friend's father. She's an attorney.

She was in high school; came home from school and told her dad, "I just got nominated for a National Merit Scholarship; I'm going to Rice University".

What did daddy do??? Beat hell out of her, of course. Because she was going to LEAVE. And this guy was a union refinery worker. Ignorant redneck, but a Democrat. This girl's grandparents were personal friends of Norman Thomas.

And her sister was in dental school, and they didn't tell daddy that sister was in dental school until she was nearly finished. Daddy thought that she was in dental hygienist school.

[msedano]

22. Their effeteness rises to the top.

Those voices of anglo hatred are the last of their tribe. What used to be considered "mainstream" long ago passed to effeteness. Sabes, unable to reproduce anything but itself, and at that, poorly. I regret Sotomayor not standing tall and behind her words. Better, yes. "Difference not deficient" is a sound argument when assessing language competency, politically it's salve for wounded ethnocentric pride. Of course she should have said "better". "Better" precisely defines the judicial insights of a Sotomayor. Ironically, better for our civilization, better for Unitedstates justice, better for the racist assholes, too. Ironic because this brown woman is giving those hating pendejos a lesson in democracy, ironic because their angry war chants reveal their true nature for reasonable people to judge and repudiate.

I love a good affront in the morning. It smells of . . .




ate,
mvs

recommended

[EFerrari]

25. These people are more barren than the lunar landscape.

But I hope they continue -- because this course will end them eventually.

[ColbertWatcher]

28. Excellent analysis! k+r, n/t

[EFerrari]

41. Do you notice that Newt Gingrich keeps telling people to resign,

Nancy and now Sonia?

Pretty safe for him, he has nothing to resign.

lol

[ColbertWatcher]

45. He's like the boss no one hired! n/t

[canetoad]

29. Your post inspired me to look up

the entire speech. Accusing her of racism is a dull-headed exercise in taking a sentence or two out of context. It is not that hard to read the preceding and following paragraphs to accurately place where from where she is coming. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Berkeley_La%20Raza_2002.pdf

Just the paragraph containing the words in question is enlightening enough to summarize the message she is presenting. Your third option of attempting to shut down the discussion by using Racism as a thought-terminating cliché is correct.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural
differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge
Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our
judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and
wise old woman will reach the same conclusion m deciding cases. I am not so sure
Justice 0'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line
to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the
statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a
universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with
the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion
than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

[EFerrari]

31. Thank you.

:)

[randr]

37. The unempathic have no feelings; they have emotions and feel things, but cannot feel for others.

Check out this article:
http://thinmanfeed.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/empathy-and-anti-empathy/

[EFerrari]

39. And people mistake empathy for sympathy all the time.

Thanks for the link.

[Cleita]

38. I have been so disgusted with the verbal feces these clowns having been

throwing at her. Not only is it racist and sexist, it reminds me of the time Hillary Clinton spoke of a vast right wing conspiracy, which she turned out to be right about. Remember how she was endlessly derided about what she said. I think they dost protest too much like they did with Hillary.

[EFerrari]

40. It's so obviously about them and not her. Just as it was with Hillary.

They only know one trick. :shrug:

[FatDave]

42. It's the only straw they have to grasp. (nt)

[EFerrari]

43. They've been palming this thing since Nixon was against busing

and Goldwater was against the Civil Rights bill and since Raygun went to dog whistle states' rights in Philadelphia, MI in 1980.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_eTDP-CSg

[omega minimo]

44. What, bigotry? Their stock in trade?

[EFerrari]

47. That's what Gene Robinson says, too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5751539

[never cry wolf]

49. "she brings first hand experience with discrimination to discrimination cases:"

This is the point the MSM neglects, the context. She was not saying a Latina would make for a better judge, but would have a keener insight to make wiser decisions regarding discrimination cases, just as a white male judge would have a keener insight than a Latina when it comes to cases involving country clubs. Who could argue with either?

In fact, later on in the speech she clarifies somewhat saying white males can and have made the right decisions in discrimination cases but the need to work harder to gain the required insight she came by naturally as a result of her background.

[Karenina]

50. Context is EVERYTHING!

:hi:

[EFerrari]

53. That speech is a very finely crafted piece.

And of course people like Tancredo exploit that because they know most people won't bother to read it or to understand it.

[Puzzler]

51. And reason #4...

... they are freaking out, because they have been told to freak out. Most don't think for themselves. If Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck freak out about anything, then they too will follow.

[EFerrari]

54. Good point! Lemmings. n/t

[Karenina]

52. Here's another:

Because it's TRUE!!! :rofl::evilgrin::rofl:

[EFerrari]

55. LOL! Well, I KNOW Latinas make better judges but I was just trying to be nice!

:rofl:

:pals:

[Karenina]

56. Here's a comprehensive summary of the proceedings from Think Progress

http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2009/05/pr20090529/index.html

[KoKo]

57. Kick.....

:kick: