Suddenly it's OK to call a judicial nominee a racist
When the nation learned in 2005 that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito had belonged to a Princeton University alumni organization that advocated a cap on the number of women and minorities allowed at Princeton, the news media quickly circled the wagons to protect the Bush nominee.
When Alito was asked by Senate Democrats about his membership in the organization -- which he touted while applying for a job in the Reagan administration -- the media denounced them for going too far. The merest hint of a suggestion of an implication that Alito was a member of a racist organization was shouted down as an unfair slander; Democrats were pilloried for making Alito's wife cry with their inappropriate questions (though Mrs. Alito didn't actually start crying until Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham took to the microphone).
Gloria Borger, for example, said that the pertinent question was not whether Alito agreed with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton's clearly racist and sexist stance on university admissions, but "whether the Democrats took this a step too far today." Katie Couric added: "Too much to take: Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's wife driven to tears after Democrats question his integrity. Did they go too far?" The media consensus that Democrats went "too far" in questioning Alito continues to this day. Fox News' Megyn Kelly recently claimed that during Alito's confirmation hearings, his wife was "crying hysterically after Ted Kennedy made her cry."
So it seems the news media treat even a suggestion that a Supreme Court nominee might be guilty of involvement in a bigoted organization as a vile slur. Even if the nominee touted his membership in a group that sought to limit the number of women and minorities accepted into his alma mater. Even then, such questions are treated as inappropriate and abusive scrutiny that have no place in civil discourse.
As long, that is, as the nominee in question is a conservative white male, nominated by a conservative white male president.
But as we learned this week, if the nominee is a progressive Latina nominated by a progressive African-American president, you can just come right out and call her a racist -- based on nothing more than a distorted quote and a ruling nobody has read -- and the media will take you seriously. They will amplify your complaints. Far from denouncing you for going "too far," they will pretend that your false descriptions of her comments are accurate.
Eight years ago, Sonia Sotomayor said that she would hope that in judging cases involving discrimination, a Latina woman would reach a better decision than would a white man who hasn't had her experiences. Past Republican Supreme Court nominees like Samuel Alito have said similar things, and it really isn't particularly controversial.
But if you change what Sotomayor said a bit -- drop a word here and there, change a few others -- to pretend that she said Latinas are better than white men ... well, that's racist!
And that's just what the right wing did. Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and other conservative media figures quickly insisted that Sotomayor is a racist and a bigot. They even compared her to David Duke. (Now, at first, you might think that if Rush Limbaugh is calling someone a racist, he must mean it as a compliment. But if you listen to his tone of voice and the full context, it's clear he means it as an insult.)
And the media, particularly cable news, took their complaints seriously. They quoted them, and they adopted the right's inaccurate shorthand version of Sotomayor's comments in order to explain why the conservatives were upset. News reports that explained that conservatives are distorting Sotomayor's comments were few and far between; reports that noted that conservatives have said similar things in the past were even rarer.
Just a few years ago, the mere suggestion that Samuel Alito should explain his membership in an organization that sought to limit the number of women and minorities at Princeton was met with outrage by the media. How dare the Democrats! They've gone too far! But now, with conservatives explicitly calling Sotomayor a "racist" based on manufactured evidence, the media can't even be bothered to point out that they are distorting her comments. Instead, the conservative complaints get taken seriously, as though they are a reasonable and fair interpretation of what Sotomayor said.
So it seems that lying about a Latina in order to call her a racist is just fine, as far as much of the media is concerned. Just don't you dare question why a white male belonged to an organization that sought to keep women and minorities out of his college. That's over the line.
















And watch some clueless con miss the point completely and ask, "Why are you guys so upset? You did the SAME THING to our nominee!" (Uh... no. No, we didn't.)
Great column as always, J.
White House: Sotomayor Says She Choses Words Poorly in 2001 Remarks
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/29/white-house-sotomayor-says-choses-words-poorly-remarks/
Guess MMFA has been wrong all week in their attacks of those who knew right away this was a racist thing to say!!!
So no, MMfA has not been wrong all week. But you are once again wrong.
If choosing words poorly exactly equals she was a 'racist' then you are right.
Tell me, is she a racist or a reverse racist?
You guys (current day Republicans) live in your own imaginary world and want the sane public to live in the same. No wonder FoxNews is still in business and not laughed out of the park.
If you take time to compose your thoughts (> 60 secs), the post hangs and never submits.
I often write long posts.
May be I being too sensitive. I will wait a while before I click 'save'.
Didn't you see that the statement was typed in BOLD LETTERS?
That's what passes for evidence in wingnut circles these days.
Maybe NH should have also underlined the sentence to add even more proof.
"After initially claiming on Dec. 1, 2004 that "neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated," the group is no longer disavowing any connection with groups "affiliated" with Soros."
As of the date of the blog entry, this statement is FALSE.
The last documented denial of Soros funding that I can find on MMFA's website is October 12th, 2007.
I'm wondering if that's because the right-wing professional liars are no longer making the accusation, or if the accusation is finally true.
That being said, I have read this accusation before. He has funded lots of things, but not Media Matters. He is not a criminal. He is as successful businessman (remember, most successful businessmen are Republicans) and like most businessmen, he has done some things that benefitted him and may have cost others - but no evidence has ever emerged that he's a criminal. He's behaved just like most powerful businessmen have. That's not a crime.
Sad that this country is being run by some euro-trash convicted international criminal who made $1.2B by his own admission on this phony "crisis".
Things are getting worse in the fascism department. Seems that we're having a redux of property confiscation not just in the form of our bank accounts, but by the fact that GM and Chrysler dealers owned by those who voted 'GOP' are being taken away and given to others who donated to liberal causes.
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/dealergate_update_corrupt_dem_donating_auto_group/
"There is just one problem with this theory. Nobody has bothered to look up data for the control group: the list of dealerships which aren't being closed. It turns out that all car dealers are, in fact, overwhelmingly more likely to donate to Republicans than to Democrats -- not just those who are having their doors closed."
Actually, it's a conspiracy that Obama is trying to keep republican-owned dealerships open. Read the statistics and the whole story here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans.html
Research, then post. If you don't, you look even more foolish and gullible.
Oh, there's a lie right there. It was revealed that over 80+ % of dealerships are owned by registered republicans who contribute to republican causes. It's only logical (well, to us logical people, that is) that most dealerships closed would be owned by a republican. There, debunked. What's your next lie?
But it doesn't really matter, because all Media Matters does is tell you exactly what people said or wrote, why it is incorrect or suspect, and precisely which objective facts prove it.
So, N00b Hack, which information sources do YOU take seriously? Please, tell us. Please? Give us a laugh?
The information is widely known to be true and easily found anywhere, and predictably being denied here.
Which information sources do YOU take seriously?
Surely not the two you posted above that other posters have debunked in less than an hour (with objective facts, not baseless smears)?
Now gow SPAM some other board, you mental midget. You're wasting our time here.
Sotomayor is no racist but Limbaugh is. Coulter is. Tancredo is.
Sorry, that's quite a bridge you've set up for them to cross, because no Democratic representative ever called Alito "a racist." At best they questioned his membership-- which the MSM considered to be totally out of line.
But this same Press is going frantic over Sotomayor's background. It's a double standard-- but really no surprise, because the media is dominated by rich White guys.
Gingrich, Buchanan and Tancredo are doing that themselves.
Granted, the press is providing them the podium to do so, but they are not holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to do interviews or to brand Sotomayor a racist. These former Republican officials are doing that of their own free will.
If the Republicans really wanted the Hispanic vote, they would be doing more to earn it, like telling their former colleagues to shut the hell up or at least not use derogatory terms when talking about Sotomayor.
Sotomayer opened her mouth and let her true feelings out and now she will pay for it like anyone else.
That's equality -- be women and men enough to live up to the responsibilities of it.
I hope you continue making a fools of yourself on these issues, personally. Eventually the Republican party will wise up and kick out the unserious Palinite wing of the party and become relevant again.
So now that the shoe is on the other foot....
You could have written
""And, no republican representative has ever SAID that Sotomayor is a racist."
"stories that make republicans seem like they hate minorities"
where are the stories that said republicans HATE minorities?
You are the current day Republican, leaving wriggle room behind your words, not having the guts to defend in plain terms what you believe in.
Shameful.. do as I say not as I do... that's this bunch.
Thomas benefited from affirmative action but was against any other black benefiting from it. That was an attack on his hypocrisy, not his racial views.
There was plenty about sexual harassment and adult videos though. There was also a sensational amount of lies about Anita Hill that came from the RW.
By the way, I'm an Armenian woman who is also a dwarf, and my right arm is 12" longer than my left arm. I also have seven toes on my right foot.
And the above statement is just as true as anyone claiming (knowing that the claim can't be verified) to be a member of any race or group. It isn't provable, and you have no reason why any posts you may have made were or were not deleted.
Maybe your "consrvative (sic) comments" were deleted for being illiterate or off-topic.
p.s.
your comment was probably deleted because of some hateful namecalling or inapropiate language. I seriously doubt much thought goes into your statements.
How come you call the Republican Party by the name they have chosen for themselves, yet you call the Democratic Party the "democrat" party, which is not the name that group calls themselves? What makes you think that you can choose their name versus them choosing their own name?
I don't care if you apologize or not. I asked why you think you get to choose what their name is?
Those differences are what stand out to me. But then, I can read for comprehension.
Why would you want to stop when the job of remedying those past injustices is incomplete?
The test in New Haven did not allow minorities to compete fairly for those jobs. There were several blacks and hispanics that 'passed' the test, so they would have been qualified. The score on that test was weighted too heavily and the test was clearly biased against the minorities.
Why would you want the city to hire people based upon a biased test? If the test had only had minorities at the top of the heap, it would be wrong to accept those results too because they'd be biased towards the minority.
The GOP also gets away with letting Limbaugh do all their dirty work while they reap the benefit and stand around acting innocent. If the GOP elected officials don't want to be associated with Limbaugh, they should denounce him.
Saying it doesn't make it so no matter how much you want a target for your sick Alinsky tactics of targeting and ridiculing.
You are correct that conservatives have always hated the media in a self-serving effort to get their followers automatically not to trust anything that is written that conflicts with conservative doctrine.
Maybe you are totally unaware of the fantasy world you live in or who really runs your candidate.
Because the GOP right now doesn't seem to have a particular 'leader', and the left is dealing with angry grassroots people of all types, we get the Napolitano report and such. It's probably frightening to them that they cannot pinpoint the source of the reaction to the rising fascism that is this administration's bent.
I've only heard of this RL controversy fleetingly since I don't listen to Limbaugh and I find it quite like something kids on a playground would do. No one cares what you think about a talk show host. It's rather amusing.
I don't feel associated with Limbaugh in any way except that his freedom of speech as a citizen, like mine, is in danger of being curtailed..
Threatening to flag posts that are perfectly civil and factual on this website are glaring proof of what I'm saying.
I've never read the Alinsky book. Have you? Probably doesn't even say what Rush says it does.
Nobody is going to take away Limbaugh's freedom of speech either. That's another hoax people who listen to Limbaugh have fallen for.
I WIN WINGNUT BINGO!
It is unlawful in the United States and it is a hallmark of Communism, National Socialism and Fascism.
You do, however, know precisely where the ignorant GOP talking point stockpile is, and you have taken way more than your fair share.
It isn't?
And the story isn't about the media's efforts "to smear republicans" but with republican's attempts to smear Judge Sotormayor.
I think it's pretty easy to argue that conservatives are the ones who have been trying to make a story out of a non-story with the racism charges to begin with. If that's a "smear", then they shouldn't have mounted all the phony outrage themselves.
It's even worse than that, because the liberals who are defending her aren't even getting her context right-- they make it sound like she is indeed saying that Latinas might have more to bring to the court in general, when in fact she was referring to gender and ethnic cases only. Only MMFA is right-on here about what she was getting at.
Regardless of the context, if a white man had made any type of statement about how he could make a better decision than a minority in any way, shape, or form....or in any context whatsoever, he would be drawn and quartered by the media. Everyone knows this....even the white house, based on their newest smooth-over coments that they have put out.
"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...Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown...However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench."
She did not say anything close to what you did. She clearly was talking about discrimination cases, and also said she "would hope" that a wise Latina woman "would more often than not" reach a better conclusion in those specific cases. Try doing some reading yourself instead of being spoon-fed lies, you might find it rewarding.
Because that argument depends completely on a disregard for the context (that Sotomayor is not a white man.
This argument reminds me of a second-grader screaming "no fair!" because some other student didn't receive exactly the same treatment as he did. Grow up, wingnuts.
That is NOT what you say when you are stating what you believe to be a fact.
That Sotomayor was setting up a hope, a desire that she would like to see fulfilled by a wise Latina woman, would be obvious to someone who'se first language was English and not troll.
If you read I would hope that a wise Latina woman would make a better decision" and say that what that means is that Latina women are smarter than white men, is willfully misreading a simple English sentence.
She's not even talking about Latina women! She's talking about wise Latina women! You know, Latina women might not be better than white men--but maybe WISE Latina women are!
Of course, she didn't even say that.
If you're driving to a dinner, and you say to your wife, "I would hope that Bill has the good sense to turn off the Playboy channel before Grandma shows up," does that mean you're confident that's what will happen? That this is a statement of fact?
I would hope that you had better sense than to believe that.
I am appalled by the lack of real journalism in the MSM. Outrageous claims go unchallenged, lies are not called out, context is suppressed and airtime is given to those who scream the loudest about their patriotism.
Sotomayor's nomination is testing all media, and so far, they are failing. Except for Media Matters, of course!
Forget the party's base for a moment because they'll be there cycle after cycle and think about the majority of voters who straddle the right and left---the people each party needs to succeed.
Do the Republicans seriously think that these voters will want to associate themselves with a party that seems to be dominated by lunatics and lairs? Will calling a female nominee dumb (in spite of her academic credentials) and questioning her 'temperament' play with women who have dealt with similar slurs in their own lives? Will immigrants or the children of immigrants embrace a party that seems to sneer at ethnic pride and call it racist? And will generous and forgiving Americans want to vote for a party that finds fault with everyone but itself?
While a few Republican politicians have started to speak up and challenge the fringe's assertions, there are so many still cowering in the corner. This is the time---right now---for them to take back their party from the failed politicians, the self-promoting media millionaires and the book-peddling bobbleheads. These people don't care about the party, they don't even care about the party's base... all they care about is themselves.
This is the tipping point for the GOP. The people who will decide if and when you get back into power are watching to see if the Republican Party is a party they can support or a party with loons for leaders.
You have a disease called "projection". You are genetically predisposed, it seems, as a Republican to spew false talking points, and disregard facts that disprove those talking points.
Since that failing is so familiar to you, you think that everyone suffers from that character defect.
We don't. Your group is the one that repeats stupid talking points.
I should not be so amazed at the personal attacks that are launched when you have no comeback for FACTS, but it's just so childish and weak, all this name-calling and "I"m going to tell on you, neener neener".
Amusing.
Did you think perhaps that THIS wasnt a personal attack?
Maybe you are totally unaware of the fantasy world you live in
You are a hypocrite
by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 9:19 pm ET)
...I want racial quotas in basketball so that there is an equal number of non-black athletes. Am I going to get any of those things? Didn't think so.
by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 11:33 pm ET)
People are still people. When people talk before they think, they can say stupid and derogatory things. To cite every incidence as "racism" is overreaching.
by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:14 pm ET)
Savage has a point. Every neighborhood that illegals have migrated to has gone down the tubes. My birthplace of Van Nuys, CA is like "little Mexico" now. Shootings, rapings, pillaging, drive-by's, grafiti, prostitution, drugs, (you know, all the things that go along with the Mexican-illegal population. Even the African-American neighborhoods are in awe!
by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:27 pm ET)
Then why is it that every one of these Mexican populated areas crime-ridden? Really, all P.C. aside, can you tell me why the real estate prices decrease in these areas? One more thing, why are the prisons filled with Mexicans? P.C. aside. See, nothing ever gets done because everybody is afraid to talk about these things.
by zamfir273114 (February 15, 2008 12:38 am ET)
I don't have to agree with someone in order to value free speech. Sure, Imus et. Al. say some nasty comments; however, unless you can diminish his listenership or his value, your barking up the wrong tree. If Hillary were black, you could resort to using Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Unfortunately, they only come running when black folk are ridiculed. Hmm, that seems a little "racist" in and of itself.
by zamfir273114 (February 14, 2008 6:35 pm ET)
That is Mr. Hussein's, I mean Obama's, name. Coulter only speaks what millions of American's think. The American people have a right to know who they are voting for. Barack Hussein Obama.
This is the second time I've posted this in response to his accusations of racism. I know I could search and come up with more instances of his racism.
Feel free to cut and paste this in response to his accusations in any other thread.
She even made the comment that because she is latino she is better than white men.
We don't expect anything better --- after all --- the president comes from a black supremicist church.
Discrimination doesn't discriminate...and latinos and blacks are just as guilty when they do it.
Sadly liberals follow a double standard that exposes how phony they really are when they use this issue as an excuse for just about everything. Now that the tables are turned, they don't much like it.
Hah.
You are delusional... is more name-calling.
Wow! You might want to check out one of the MMFA blogs that shows the commentator who made this statement mixed up the group Sotomayer with a 60s radical group. The group Sotomayer belongs to is a civil rights group.
"The motto Tancredo's referring to seems to be a mistranslation of a slogan of sorts from the 1960s...As it turns out, NCLR doesn't even have a motto"
linkYour text to link here...
Read something for yourself. Stop believing everything you hear the right wing nuts tell you on the radio and TV. It is clear that you were lying to us about not listening to your radio thinkers. This statement you made is patently false and has been proven so. LOOK IT UP, please. For your own sake. You lower the entire discourse of the nation when you continue to present proven falsehoods as facts just because you allow some lunatic on the radio to think for you. Please - do it for the good of your country. Learn something about LaRAZA before you begin calling it a hate-group. You look ridiculous.
And you are a racist... is apparently becoming a fact.
By the same sort of reasoning, flipping Sotomayor's phrase to "what if it was a white man saying it..." doesn't work either. White men are not often the victims of unfair discrimination, so a white man saying it would more reasonably be argued to be racist.
Further, what makes you the end all be all judge and authority of who can be a racist and who is not?
The faulty arguments and name-calling here and lack of knowoledge of the background of your own propaganda-fraught and Soros funded movement is breathtaking..
Thank you for confirming it for everyone who reads this "regressive" website.
That is a self-defeating argument. If you don't think anyone has the authority to determine if someone is a racist, then why do you reserve such authority for yourself?
>>The faulty arguments and name-calling here and lack of knowoledge of the background of your own propaganda-fraught and Soros funded movement is breathtaking.
I guess your irony meter is broken? By the way, MMFA is not Soros funded.
Who passed the civil rights' legislation in the 60s? Who invented the "Southern Strategy" specifically to appeal to Southern racists?
Rush Limbaugh and the Republican owned press didn't call Clarence Thomas a racist for these clearly racist remarks. But, they will rush to calling a Democratic nominee a racist for much more nuanced comments. Clarence Thomas has made far more aggressive remarks against white men than Sonja Sotomayor and yet Rush Limbaugh had Clarence Thomas officiate one of his many weddings.
You say that her remark is not racist but don't justify your assertion. You say the Right doctored it, but I quote it as you wrote it. No doctoring here. I also do not accuse her of saying that Latinas are better than white men.
Her remark is racist. It assumes that only people of the same ethnic/racial group can understand or empathize with people of that racial group. It is racist regardless of who said it.
We need judges who treat all Americans equally regardless of race,color or ethnic group. Judges who sanction different treatment for people depending on their race are guilty of misbehavior and should be removed from office.
In the pre-civil rights era some judges turned a blind eye to ill-treatment of black people. Others judged blacks more harshly than whites. That is what we will return to if Sotomayor believes what she said and acts on it.
If she stands by this remark, she will have to recuse herself if a case involves white or black non-Hispanic people because, on her own admission, being Latina, she cannot judge whites or blacks as well as a white/black judge. Obama should ask her to withdraw.
"I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown...However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench."
"We need judges who treat all Americans equally regardless of race,color or ethnic group."
"In those 50 cases, the panel accepted the claim of race discrimination only three times. In all three cases, the panel was unanimous; in all three, it included a Republican appointee...In the 50 cases, the panel was unanimous in every one. There was a Republican appointee in 38, and these panels were all obviously unanimous as well. Thus, in the roughly 45 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor never dissented."
And;
"I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
As far as letting ONE sentence from a person's ENTIRE life dictate how you view here, that's just lunacy. You should look at her rulings, her opinions, her entire speech, the context of the speech, and give her the benefit of the doubt. If someone used ONE sentence out of your entire life againist you, I'm sure you would want the same benefit of the doubt and I'm sure you would want someone to look at everything you've done your whole life, not just judge you based on 1 sentence.
I don't need to have a loved one murdered,or to be raped, to know that each is a horrible crime or to be able to judge such a case fairly. Fairness requires some attention to the feelings of the murder victim's family or victims of crimes.
The crucial factor is common humanity. It exceeds race,color, class, religion or any other difference you can dream up. It is something you either recognize and honor in the way you live and behave, or you don't. Unlike the common experience of race or ethnicity, it excludes no-one.
Those of us who grew up in the 1960s were so horrified by the events of the pre-Civil Rights era that we vowed never again to allow such a situation to arise.
Equal Rights requires that the law be applied to all Americans equally. There is no place in the Constitution or law for any judge who might consider his/her own ethnic/racial group differently from any other group.
We need people who will be "good" (as in pure of heart) enough to actively put considerations of race and ethnicity aside and judge Americans... not hyphenated Americans. We should ban the hyphenated American from public life.
I believe that most American judges strive to do justice for everyone regardless of race or ethnicity, but every time a person of influence makes a remark like this it reinforces the sense of victimhood in minorities and raises a question in white American minds that this person would, perhaps could not give them fairness vis a vis minorities. It creates new barriers to social harmony.
I'm sorry, earlier you said that her comment was racist. You were making a declaration about the actual nature of the comment, not about how many people would take it out of context.
I don't see you addressing the point that she obviously has not had her objectivity compromised. There should be no question regarding her fairness given the study of her discrimination case history. Do you disagree?
On another note it is truly amazing to hear obvious bigots such as Limbaugh and Beck call someone a racist. I can also understand where judge Sotomeyer was coming from as well as MIchelle Obama when she made her statement about being proud of her country for the first time. The fact is that people of color in this country typically have more nuanced and multidimintional views than the average Anglo-American. We know your perspective on everything, Brian Williams, Ted Koppel, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, ect. all white males. How many white people read Black, Latino, Asian or Indigenous newspapers? Listen to Black, Latino, Asian or Indigenous talk radio? Watch..........you get the point. We not only know the feelings hopes and desires of our own people but we also know theirs. So in essence judge Sotomeyer was correct. I know all about you while you know nothing about me. This is what Rev. Wright was trying to say but instead of trying to listen to a perspective that is never heard they automatically went into "if a white male said this" mode without even attempting to see his point of view. Nothing new. Just wait until Obama's next SC pick when he chooses a Black female. All hell is going to break loose.
I do get the point. I try to listen to black speakers and read black journals, but they are often dismissive and insulting about people of other races. Some use black English which the rest of America does not understand. However, there are now a multitude of black hosts on regular television programs which perhaps indicates that they do not regard their perspective as any different from that of other Americans.
I also sometimes listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and Olbermann. I have to say I have never heard Limbaugh or Hannity express disrespect for other races whether you agree with their views or not. Olbermann is vicious towards everyone who does not agree with him, regardless of race.
A black female American judge is no different from any other American judge as long as her history does not show bias towards blacks or against other races. I doubt Limbaugh, Hannity or anyone else would object.
Latina woman and accomplished jurist,she has earned the right to make that comment.It could have been worded better so explore it during confirmation but claiming racism is over the top.
If you have not heard racist/disrespectful comments from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity I'm afraid you must not know one when you hear it..they do it almost daily ..esp Limbaugh who just last week referred to Native Americans as those clowns......Do you think Barack the Magic Negro was disrespectful to the President of the US or racist ??How about him telling a black caller to take the bone out of his nose and call back!!?
As John McEnroe would say"You can't be serious!!!!!!!"