About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Conservatives react to historic Supreme Court nominee by smearing Sotomayor as "racist," "bigot"

May 27, 2009 12:23 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Numerous conservative media figures have misrepresented remarks Judge Sonia Sotomayor made during a speech at Berkeley in 2001 to smear her as a racist and a bigot.

59 Comments

Since President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, numerous conservative media figures have smeared her as a racist and a bigot. In doing so, these media figures have frequently cited -- and misrepresented -- remarks she made during a speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law, in which she asserted, "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." Specifically, Rush Limbaugh claimed Sotomayor is a "reverse racist"; radio host Mark Levin called her a "bigot"; and Glenn Beck claimed Sotomayor made "one of the most outrageous racist remarks I've heard. ... She sure sounds like a racist."

As Media Matters for America has documented, media figures have misrepresented Sotomayor's Berkeley remarks. For example, Fox News host Megyn Kelly said that Sotomayor was claiming "that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges." In fact, Sotomayor was specifically discussing the importance of diversity in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases.

Indeed, former Bush Justice Department lawyer John Yoo has similarly stressed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him" and argued that Thomas' work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the less fortunate acquired through personal experience. Thomas himself, in responding to the question during his confirmation hearing of why he "want[ed] this job," said in part: "I believe ... that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does."

Numerous conservative media figures have accused Sotomayor of racism or bigotry since her nomination to the Supreme Court:

  • During the May 26 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said of  Sotomayor: "So here you have a racist. You might -- you might want to  soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of  course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the  power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because  reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power.  Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's  appointed one." Elsewhere during his show, Limbaugh claimed:

LIMBAUGH: The drive-by media, AP, reporting that I referred to Sonia Sotomayor as a "reverse racist" and Obama as a -- which I did. I stand by it. I have an audio sound bite from Sonia Sotomayor and a quote from a speech that she made in a separate occasion to illustrate the point.

After playing audio of Sotomayor at a 2005 forum, Limbaugh then read an excerpt from Sotomayor's Berkeley speech and said, "If that's not a racist statement, I don't know what is -- reverse racist or whatever": 

LIMBAUGH: In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sonia Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it's appropriate for a judge to consider, quote, "their experiences as women and people of color" -- reverse racism. She's a minority. Only she can understand the horrible trials and tribulations minorities have gone through, and the courts are the places where their grievances are redressed -- and they're not. The court is where the law is dealt with.

In the same speech, Sonia Sotomayor went on to say, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." If that's not a racist statement, I don't know what is -- reverse racist or whatever. Let me read it to you another way.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in another speech, said, I would hope that a wise white man, with the richness of his experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn't lived the rich white man's life. Do you think there would be any dispute that John Roberts had made a racist statement?

  • During the May 26 broadcast of  his radio show, Levin claimed of "so-called  moderate" Democratic senators voting on Sotomayor: "These people  need to understand that if they vote to confirm a radical leftist -- and I  will now say what I actually believe -- who is a bigot -- that's right, I  said it -- then they need to pay a political price for this." Levin later  said he wanted to "defend my position that I believe this nominee is  bigoted":

LEVIN: Let me defend my position that I believe this nominee is bigoted. New York Times of all places, May 15th -- we will link to all this on marklevinshow.com. In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge, quote, "may and will make a difference in our judging." She said, quote, "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."

Now I'm sure they'll spin it. I'm sure they'll attack those of us who see something like this as a red flag, but there is no way -- there is no way you can justify a statement like that other than a bigoted statement. That's not based on somebody's content or character, as Martin Luther King would say. That's based on a generalized statement about race and ethnicity. That statement alone -- that statement alone should disqualify her. Period.

While Levin said he "actually believe[d]" that Sotomayor is a "bigot," Levin later claimed he didn't believe she is "a bigot per se, but her comment was certainly bigoted":

CALLER: Yeah. I mean, well, other than the fact that she's a bigot. I mean, but, you know, she's a horrible choice.

LEVIN: All right --

CALLER: Anyway, Mark, just wanted your thought on that -- on that legal perspective. But God bless, man. And --

LEVIN: All right, you too. Thank you.

Now I don't know that I would say she's a bigot per se, but her comment was certainly bigoted -- the one that I've read. And if that is her view, and if that is something she has told other people, then there is a serious question. There's just no question about that.

  • On the May 26 edition of his  Fox News program, Beck said Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments "smacks of racism" and  is "one of the most outrageous racist remarks I've heard." Beck later  claimed:

BECK: I don't like the charges of, "Oh, you're a racist. They're a racist." Very few people are racist.

There are racists and they're bad people. And -- but it's -- most Americans are good, just decent people, and I hate the charges and cries of racism. But when I hear this -- I mean, gee. She sure sounds like a racist here.

  • On the May 27 broadcast of his radio  program, Beck similarly claimed of Sotomayor: "I think she's a racist. I think she has  decided things based on race." From Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

BECK: Well, we've got a -- we've got a Supreme Court justice nominee that is going to be all compassionate and empathetic. I think she's a racist. I think she has decided things based on race. I think she says that a Hispanic woman with the experience of being a Hispanic woman can make decisions that a white man can't make.

I can't imagine -- I can't imagine saying that. That's like saying, "You know what? Hispanics can't make money decisions like them Jews." Can you imagine that? I mean, they just can't -- "Look, I don't mean any offense by that. It's just that Hispanics, they're generally on the lower end of the economic spectrum, and Jews, they have so much experience with money and running financial things. They can -- Jews can just make financial decisions that Hispanics can't."

Who would say that? Who would say that? In what setting besides a Klan rally -- that strangely had respect for Jews in this one case -- in what setting would that be said that everybody wouldn't go, "Wow, you're a racist"?

I guess, it's just, again, you need to be the right person in the right class with the right point of view. That is not a healthy sign. It's not a healthy sign that we're talking about putting that person to now decide what the law says.

  • On the May 26 broadcast  of his radio show, CNN host Lou Dobbs called Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments  "racist." Dobbs also added of Sotomayor's nomination: "This is pure, pure  absolute pandering to the Hispanics, and, you know, filling in the box on  one more minority -- that who is actually, you know, they are actually a  majority -- and that is women."
  • During the May 26 edition of Fox News' America's  Newsroom, Kelly described Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remarks as  "reverse racism" and said it was "[l]ike she's saying that  Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges." Kelly  later added, "I've looked at the entire speech that she was offering  to see if that was taken out of context, and I have to tell you ... it  wasn't."
  • During the May 26 edition  of Fox News' The Live Desk, Fox News contributor Tucker  Carlson claimed that Sotomayor had said that "because of your race or  gender, you're a better or worse judge; that female, Latina judges are likely to render wiser  decisions than white male judges." Carlson continued, "That's a racist  statement, by any calculation."
  • During the May 27 broadcast  of ABC's Good Morning America, columnist Ann Coulter claimed of  Sotomayor's "wise Latina"  comments: "It is a racist statement, and I think it does a disservice to  women and minorities that we're supposed to be empathizing for by  suggesting they do have a different way of deciding cases."
  • A May 27 Washington Examiner editorial, headlined, "The racist  jurisprudence of Sonia Sotomayor," accused Sotomayor of "blatant racism":

But it is her 2001 comment to a Berkley [sic] Law School audience that is most revealing of Sotomayor's ethnocentric jurisprudence: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." It is not hard to imagine the outcry that would greet a white male nominee who suggested that his ethnicity and experience would enable him to reach better conclusions than a minority who had lived a different sort of life. He would be dismissed as a racist, and rightly so. Is President Obama now asking that we look the other way when blatant racism comes from an Hispanic woman of otherwise solid achievement?

  • In a May 27 Denver Post column, Vincent Carroll claimed  Sotomayor's "wise Latina"  comments were an "expression of bigotry":

If racial and gender bigotry truly have no place in American public life today, then Judge Sonia Sotomayor, during her confirmation hearing for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, needs to utterly repudiate her 2001 assertion that "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."

Putting that statement "in context" or explaining what she "really meant" will not do. Nor can Judge Sotomayor credibly argue that her assertion was an ill-considered mistake, since it was part of a prepared speech at the Berkeley school of law. No, she needs to reject it as the expression of bigotry that it was.

Even then she'd be getting off easy. After all, as Stuart Taylor wrote last weekend in the National Journal, "Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority."

Sotomayor, by contrast, is on the verge of a lifetime post on the most powerful court in the land.

While Sotomayor's comparison of the relative wisdom of Latina women and white men has garnered most of the attention in her Berkeley speech, it was hardly her only eyebrow-raising remark that day. After wondering "whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society," she then added, "Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address."

Is she really suggesting that men and women, as well as people of different races, "have basic differences in logic and reasoning" in approaching legal issues? Once again, can you imagine a prominent white male saying such a thing without a legion of critics demanding that he do public penance?

From the May 26 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: So here you have a racist. You might -- you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one.

From the May 26 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Mark Levin Show:

LEVIN: Again, next hour, you won't want to miss it, we're going to get much more heavily into this. We're going to hear some audio, some statements. And I'll put it in context for you, because we have to fight these things. They keep rolling over -- "Ah, well, they're going to get her anyway." Ah, excuse me. There are some so-called moderate Democrats: [Sen. Ben] Nelson of Nebraska, Landfill [Sen. Mary Landrieu] of Louisiana, [Sen. Evan] Bayh of Indiana.

These people need to understand that if they vote to confirm a radical leftist -- and I will now say what I actually believe -- who is a bigot -- that's right, I said it -- then they need to pay a political price for this. These are lifetime appointments. This isn't the deputy associate director of jelly beans. This is a Supreme Court justice.

[...]

LEVIN: Let me defend my position that I believe this nominee is bigoted. New York Times of all places, May 15th -- we will link to all this on marklevinshow.com. In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge, quote, "may and will make a difference in our judging." She said, quote, "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."

Now I'm sure they'll spin it. I'm sure they'll attack those of us who see something like this as a red flag, but there is no way -- there is no way you can justify a statement like that other than a bigoted statement. That's not based on somebody's content or character, as Martin Luther King would say. That's based on a generalized statement about race and ethnicity. That statement alone -- that statement alone should disqualify her. Period.

[...]

CALLER: Well, you know what, Mark? I think that that one comment that she made where policy is made --

LEVIN: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: -- on the federal -- at the Court of Appeals, I think that comment alone should disqualify her, because right there --

LEVIN: I do, too.

CALLER: I'm sorry?

LEVIN: That's one of them. There's others as well.

CALLER: Yeah. I mean, well, other than the fact that she's a bigot. I mean, but, you know, she's a horrible choice.

LEVIN: All right --

CALLER: Anyway, Mark, just wanted your thought on that -- on that legal perspective there. But God bless, man. And --

LEVIN: All right, you too. Thank you.

Now I don't know that I would say she's a bigot per se, but her comment was certainly bigoted -- the one that I've read. And if that is her view, and if that is something she has told other people, then there is a serious question. There's just no question about that.

From the May 26 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: OK. And I want to get into this because I think she's made one of the most outrageous racist remarks I've heard. We'll get into that here in just a second when we come back.

[...]

BECK: Here's what our Supreme Court justice nominee said in a lecture at UC Berkeley School of Law in 2001. She said: "I would hope that a wise Latino woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Gosh, that smacks of racism, but maybe it's just me, Ed.

M. EDWARD WHELAN III (Ethics and Public Policy Center president): Well, any white male who made the equivalent of that statement would readily be indicted for racism. Look, what she's talking about is that it's perfectly acceptable for her to draw on her own values in deciding what the law means. That's a recipe for lawlessness.

And we see that, actually, when we look at the way she decided an important case that's now pending before the Supreme Court involving firefighters in New Haven who are denied promotions on the basis of their race.

These are white and Hispanic firefighters who passed a promotional exam that the city had established. The city then decided it didn't like the racial profile of those who had passed and then threw out the exam.

And Sonia Sotomayor, in this case, had no empathy for these firefighters who had worked hard and studied to take this exam. And she and her colleagues worked to bury their claims before anyone could have any idea what had actually happened to them -- really remarkable shenanigans that a Clinton appointee and a fellow Hispanic, Judge Jose Cabranes, exposed. And thanks to him, the case is now in front of the Supreme Court. And --

BECK: So -- look, you know, both of you guys, I don't like the charges of, "Oh, you're a racist. They're a racist." Very few people are racist.

There are racists and they're bad people. And -- but it's -- most Americans are good, just decent people, and I hate the charges and cries of racism. But when I hear this -- I mean, gee. She sure sounds like a racist here. Do you think she's a racist, Randy?

RANDY BARNETT (Georgetown University Law Center professor): Well, I'm a full-time law professor and I can tell you that statements like that are relatively commonplace in academia, in legal academia and other forms of academia. So I'm sure that she felt rather comfortable in making a statement like that. And I think people just get used to saying things like that without necessarily thinking them through.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wookie (May 27, 2009 12:52 pm ET)
      2 2
      Imagine the quote like this

      "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not make better chimichangas than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by thejbomb65 (May 27, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
        4 1
        any way you slice it, el rushbo and co. are the racists
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Victor Colorado (May 27, 2009 12:53 pm ET)
      5  
      Ooooh, we've reached the part of Obama's historic Presidency where the right wing white people re-learn what bigotry is and is not. I re-applaud their effort and hope not to see them continue to shrug in failure live on TV.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (May 27, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
      9 2
      Up next: Sotomayor is out of touch with mainstream america because she has white legally american gardeners maintaining her lawn. Rush will not stand for that!

      [http://allhatnocattle.net/52709bag.jpg]
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jcalton (May 28, 2009 10:35 am ET)
           
        Nice cartoon. Needs more religion.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj2970 (May 28, 2009 1:56 am ET)
        1  
        I think he and many other Republicans are in a NO Win Hell already. And they seem bent on continuing to behave in such a way that us old time Republicans of many many years just have to get out of the party.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by sdlnkicker4551 (May 27, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
      3  
      It is hard to believe that these individuals are educated as they claim. If I twisted the truth as much as they do, I would lose my job, my wife, and my all my friends.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (May 27, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
      3  
      Anyone NOT believe that these brainless paid-for mouth-piece whores had their talking points sent to them, basically saying the exact same words no matter who would have been nominated??

      That these pathetic insects actually still believe anyone but their zombie followers listen to anything they say...

      What we need is some well known public figure to stand up to these right-wing freaks and do what was done to Senator McCarthy back in 1954 that made him shrivel away and disappear in disgrace!

      It's a good thing Fox-Noise went out of its way to show that the media has a legal right to lie about anything it wants ---> Link
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (May 27, 2009 1:56 pm ET)
        3  
        Now you've done it. We'll have someone on here sooner or later claiming that McCarthy was a GREAT AMERICAN, and that above all, he was RIGHT! Even if he were, there is no law against being a commie in American. Freedom of Association I believe it's called, 1st amendment and all.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by CountChocul8 (May 27, 2009 1:52 pm ET)
      1 7
      The statement IS racist. Just because it aims at someone else does not make it acceptable. Deal with it America.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 27, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
        6 1
        NO it isnt and wishing wont make it so. YOU deal with it. I know reality isnt the strong suit for conservatives but you repeating something dumb doesnt make it into something true.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pointofview (May 27, 2009 7:35 pm ET)
            7
          and YOU believing that it is not racist does NOT make it so.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 27, 2009 9:05 pm ET)
            4  
            It ISNT racist any reasonable reading of the entire statement proves that on its own. My opinion is superfluous to the FACT that it isnt racist. If you could READ and werent brainwashed you would know that too
            Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (May 27, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
        6 1
        racist is playing "barack the magic negro" on national airwaves and saying McNabb only got the job because of the color of his skin. Saying you hope someone of hispanic background and a good education would do a better job ruling on an ethnic issue than a white man would only says she thinks someone growing up in the same situation would have better knowledge to pass judgement on those types of issues. Here's a common statement I've found on way to many right wing sites:

        Blacks need to clean up their own houses first before they start to whine about general societal decay.

        Y'all believe this yet you decry it? How hipocritical is that...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by See the light (May 29, 2009 11:25 am ET)
            1
          You should examine what Mr. Cosby has stated. This should enlighten you a little. I volunteer in an effort to see minority children learn how to read. However, it's not easy when parents (who are no longer together) ignore their children. Someone must help, pick up the ball and run, since they aren't doing it themselves. Also "passing judgement on those types of issues" isn't the role of a judge. It is to apply the law equally and fairly (ie. the sybol of justice in America is the blindfolded woman holding the scales of justice). Get it - "blindfolded"? Applying the law equally and fairly results in justice. That's the point. Justice. Not revenge, or righting past wrongs, or a chip on your shoulder. That creates resentment, promotes mediocrity, and perhaps endangers a life (when it comes to fire personnel). Shameful.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (May 27, 2009 1:56 pm ET)
      6 1
      We saw this with the Rev. Wright. He preached 3 different sermons each Sunday for what - fifteen or twenty years? The right wingnutz distilled hundreds and hundreds of hours into a handful of soundbites - and then people thought they knew the Rev. Wright!

      Here we have a sitting judge who has written and signed what? One hundred and fifty opinions? Why not honestly look at her record?

      Geez - that would take work (analysis). How much easier it is to crab a few soundbites from a speech or two, run them out of context, and claim to understand her career!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by webprogrammer (May 27, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
      3  
      I think we can safely stop referring to conservatism as if it were something real. Even many conservatives are aware that conservatism is in the process right now of being embalmed and prettied up so that everyone at the viewing can say, "Doesn't it look natural?" There was a time when I thought there were conservatives out there who wouldn't allow their ideology to be cheapened to the point of irrelevance, who would get up off their butts and make an effort. I was mistaken. I used to joke about conservatism dying with Dwight Eisenhower and being buried in an unmarked grave in case someone was tempted to dig it up and try to revive it. Sadly, that was obviously not a joke. I understand why people like Jeter and Tommy aren't showing up anymore. I find these people detestable, and even I'm starting to feel embarrassed for them. It's starting to feel like making fun of the kids in special class.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by thejbomb65 (May 27, 2009 2:52 pm ET)
        2  
        see what your describing is the Goldwater type conservatisim. what we see today being killed off and embalmed....is neo conservatisim. Goldwater style i believe in, so it sorta does live at least to me
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Lazlo P. Hollyfeld (May 27, 2009 2:20 pm ET)
      4  
      We should absolutely be encouraging this kind of rhetoric. There is very little chance that the conservatives can derail this nomination, especially not on these grounds. There is, however, the very real chance that the GOP is alienating Hispanic and women voters. Hooray for them!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by CountChocul8 (May 27, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
      1 6
      The current Supreme Court nominee is either a racist, or not. I cannot go by the evidence that is not there, so I will look at some of the evidence that is out there. Her quote about how a Latina woman should make better decisions that a white male because of the richness of her background are absurd. We white men make bad decisions all the time, but it’s not simply because we are not diverse. Having a background as someone who comes from a traditionally oppressed group only gives you a background different from mine, it does not, however, automatically qualify you as diverse. To have a diverse background, one needs to be able to examine his/her own life in context of both the world around him/her, apply logic and arrive at a willingness to embrace the good from your own and others’ points of view while simultaneously rejecting the bad from all of the above also.
      Too often we are willing to accept as fact that a woman and/or someone of color or non Caucasian ethnic origin are diverse simply because they are non-male and or non-white.
      I will propose that opposition to the justice because of her statement is probably not warranted. The statement itself seems not intended to be as offensive as it was taken in some quarters, but at the same time, it is wrong to question why people could be offended. It is an offensive statement. It seems to gives a higher moral authority to those who are not like me, simply because they are not like me in the most superficial of ways: appearance.
      It seems to me that the future of America is in the hands of those who would attempt to silence criticism by demonizing the critics rather than thinking up a well reasoned argument for their own point of view.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 27, 2009 4:57 pm ET)
        8 1
        You need to deal with the ENTIRE quote the totality of what she said not the cropped citation being run in rightwing circles. The context of what she said was first about gender and racial cases. Are you really making the argument that experience IN that area should not be seen as giving the kind of insight that would lead to better decisions? Generally not in every case which, second, she said directly. She said she agreed they shouldnt be so myopic as to think that white males havent in the past made good decisions on these issues. So NO she isnt claiming moral superiority NOR was the statement offensive. Your last statement

        It seems to me that the future of America is in the hands of those who would attempt to silence criticism by demonizing the critics rather than thinking up a well reasoned argument for their own point of view.

        Is pure IRONY since you are doing the very thing you are railing against
        Report Abuse
        • Author by zamfir273114 (May 27, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
          1 6
          I have considered the totality of the circumstances in which Sotomeyer described herself as being more fit to make a judicial decision because she is a latina woman. There is no way around it: the comment is suggestive that Sotomeyer will make a better judge because of her race and sex. If a white male said this, hell would break loose on the left.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 27, 2009 6:17 pm ET)
            5 1
            Apparantly you HAVENT. Why would her experience of experiencing race and gender issues NOT make her GENERALLY a better judge OF them? It seems axiomatic to me especially since she qualified it with the rest of her remarks CITING white courts that made good judgements like Brown. The situation does not easily reverse. Not in the racial issue. Being in the group WITH the majority AND the power just will never be the same as being OUT of the majority and power. If he made the comment about his experience on other issues then no it would be taken in stride. You see racism because you WANT to no other reason exists
            Report Abuse
            • Author by zamfir273114 (May 27, 2009 7:40 pm ET)
                6
              Face it, it's OK for a minority to be prejudicial against white people and an advocate of their own race. If she was a candidate for anything but the Supreme Court I might let it pass; however, because that court makes so many important decisions, I am not sure Sotomeyer's racist remarks are irrelevant.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (May 27, 2009 7:46 pm ET)
                3  
                Please show one ruling where she was prejudicial against white people? You've done nothing except run with the right's out of context remark from several years ago to make bogus claims of racism. Show more, we're waiting.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by zamfir273114 (May 27, 2009 9:11 pm ET)
                    1
                  Snoopy, how about the New Haven case? Throwing out promotion examinations because at the present moment, no hispanics or African American's can get high enough score to get the higher paying positions? That is like throwing out the BAR examination because statistics have shown hispanics and blacks to worse on those examinations than white people. That is reverse racism.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (May 27, 2009 9:36 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Just got back from my daughter's awards ceremony, so hope you see this. I'll go read it and give you the benefit of the doubt until then. Thanks for breaking from the mold.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (May 27, 2009 9:59 pm ET)
                    3  
                    OK, so seems to me that protecting title VII isn't racist, it's upholding a landmark civil rights law. As I understand the case, the black firefighters all failed the test and sued based on the grounds that the test was not job related and therefore illegal. They won in the lower court, and the case went to a three judge panel. The real issue is Sotomayor and the other two judges chose not to add opinions to the ruling - they basically punted. I'd say it's fair to question why she didn't comment, it created more questions than it answered. But ruling in favor of a civil rights law isn't racism.

                    There are two other judges who ruled, are they racists as well?
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 27, 2009 9:08 pm ET)
                2  
                They arent racist remarks they wont BECOME racist because you keep repeating they are. I know wingnuts think there is some magical number of times you repeat something and it becomese true but that is a fantasy. It IS ok to point out one of the few ADVANTAGES that being a disadvantaged minority most of your life gives you and that ISNT racist anymore than me admitting that me being a white male Christian has been an advantage in MY life.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by zamfir273114 (May 27, 2009 9:13 pm ET)
                    3
                  Ok, and you are being intellectually dishonest to think that because Sotomayer is a hispanic, he word's couldn't "possibly" be racist. Sure. Do as I say don't do as I do, right?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (May 27, 2009 9:53 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Did anybody say that her words couldn't "possibly" be racist because she's hispanic?

                    There simply is no derogatory generalization being made about white men by saying that women and minorities are more likely to have a better perspective on cases of discrimination. I've never suffered discrimination because of my status as a white man. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of seeing things from that perspective, but obviously it's more likely that failure will occur among white men.

                    What is it about this concept you are not grasping, seriously? If a mother told you she had a better idea of what childbirth felt like than you did, would you consider that to be a sexist remark, or what?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (May 27, 2009 10:00 pm ET)
                    4  
                    Stawaman alert. NOTHING I said could possibly make that dumb statement make sense. Racism is the belef that you are BETTER than others BECAUSE of your race of they are NOT as GOOD as you because of your race. NOT that the experiences of BEING that race wont give you a different perspective. Just repeat the idiocy whether it makes sense or not RIGHT?
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (May 27, 2009 7:00 pm ET)
            1  
            You went to Cal?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (May 27, 2009 6:06 pm ET)
        5 1
        Oh, really? She now said that a latina should make better decisions than a white male overall? Really? Wake up, she said specifically about certain racial issues which is totally different. And more precisely, she mentioned a latina woman growing up under similar circumstances. Please keep her statements in context in the future.

        You're last statement, I agree with it. The other day Liberty University banned the college democrats from their campus because of their political views, and of course the college republicans get to stay and have free access to campus meeting rooms and housing. I wish republicans would stop demonizing everyone they don't like and then spend hours projecting their faults upon everyone else.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pointofview (May 27, 2009 7:39 pm ET)
        1 6
        CountChocul8

        Very well said, but you will still be attacked here for not drinking the kool aid. Thoughtful debate is not appreciated by most here.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (May 27, 2009 7:48 pm ET)
          5  
          To not drink the kool aid would imply that he's not trotting out the same debunked right wing lies that Rush and co. told him to say. I'd say he took a real long draught of the kool aid before he posted that.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (May 27, 2009 9:12 pm ET)
          2  
          How would you know. You havent engaged in any thoughtful debate in any thread since the day you came here. Repeating the same stale talking point debunked a few dozen times may make YOU happy we know how much you wingnuts LOVE repitition but it really is weak. As for the Kool-aid that is pure projection you brainwashed wingnuts have been guzzling it for YEARS.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by CountChocul8 (May 28, 2009 9:34 am ET)
             
          An actual confirmation hearing should allow the nominee to explain the statement. I am not prejudjuing her, but it is curious that the statement is not relevant in some quarters simply because of her background.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (May 27, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
      2  
      The right wing nuts have become completely unhinged. When will the MSM start calling them out on their derangement??
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (May 27, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
      2  
      Well, hey, they are all just following in the footsteps of their great fearless leader, Rush Limbaugh, and mimicing everything bit a hatred that drools from his mouth.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by zamfir273114 (May 27, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
      2 6
      Nice. Playing the liberal race card. Can't beat 'em, join 'em.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (May 27, 2009 8:24 pm ET)
        1  
        Who is?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by zamfir273114 (May 27, 2009 9:14 pm ET)
             
          Conservatives.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (May 27, 2009 11:57 pm ET)
            1  
            Wow. So you admit you and conservatives are being disingenuous here? Isn't that the whole implication behind the accusation of "playing the race card"?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (May 28, 2009 8:02 am ET)
              1  
              I was wondering about that myself. And if the complaints about Sotomayor are legitimate, as Zamfir himself accuses her of making a racist comment, then that would suggest "playing the race card" also refers to legitimate charges of racism from the left.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by sheerinsanity (May 27, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
      4 1
      The only thing that surprises me about all of this is that people seem shocked that the extreme right would say that. Look, some people were always going to oppose whoever Obama picked. Obama could have picked the next Antonin Scalia and they would still be fuming. I always knew they would find something to smear Obama's nominee with, whether real or imagined (in this case, imagined).

      Can't they find anything better?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by timtimes (May 27, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
      2  
      Problem is, that once you’ve accustomed yourself to an habitual liar, the internal filters kick in and you can smell bulls..t when a cow farts in Iowa.

      Enjoy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sabastian Curry (May 27, 2009 9:01 pm ET)
        1
      Media Matters appears to be afraid of my comments and won't publish them - afraid of the truth? But what fun is it for you guys to just agree with one another, doesn't that get boring?

      There is only truth, only the real and unreal.

      Natural Law rules the universe, and people are naturally racist. We evolved to live in small family groups, are predators, and protect our own. Remember Darwin, or that doesn't apply here.

      Sotomayer is a racist, but then so are most people in one way or another. But for common civil law a judge should be unbiased, wear the blindfold, and rule based on the natural condition of humans.

      Sabastian Curry
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 28, 2009 12:56 pm ET)
        1  
        You're just being moderated because you're new.

        That's an interesting view of the world. I suppose if I ran out of food it would be perfectly natural for me to kill you and take your food, money, and valuables to sell. That would be predatory and protecting my own.

        What does "rule based on the natural condition of humans" mean?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by See the light (May 29, 2009 11:11 am ET)
        2
      Truly amazing. An explicitly racist statement is defended by liberals. I really don't know how. The symbol for justice in America is a woman blindfolded holding the scales of justice. Now how does this Sotomayor actually embody this ideal? She certainly is missing the fairness and objectivity she is supposed to impart. I must remind liberals that the role of a judge is to apply the law fairly. Her decisions have been everything but fair, and in fact more than half have been overturned. That says it all and should cause liberals to think crtically for just a few precious minutes of their lives. This isn't some biogrpahical contest to see who's had the most difficult life experiences, it's about doing the job. And this talk about old time Republicans...mind you Miguel Estrada, Clarence Thomas, and Roberto Gonzalez are Republican. Liberals again just don't get it. Shameful how liberals can ignore facts.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by See the light (May 29, 2009 11:36 am ET)
        2
      This is absurd beyond absurd. Disgusting. I don't care about her experiences!! She doesn't care about mine! Fairness, period. I care about her unbiased, fair, application of the law. She should be applying the law "blindly", not selectively. More than half of her decisions have been overturned. She is a bad judge, even before you consider her racist views. Geez, you'd think this was Nazi Germany by promoting this kind of ignorance of rights and the law. What's next for Sotomayor? Is she going to call for the rounding up of all white males and put them to death? Call for their execution just because they're white? Enough is enough with your liberals making a mockery of our laws.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 29, 2009 1:58 pm ET)
        2  
        You are bonkers. First off, you're assuming that she doesn't care about anyone's experiences. That's binary thinking on steroids - caring about one group of people does not preclude her from caring about another. Secondly, she's made more than five decisions in her career, obviously, so the claim that over half of her decisions have been overturned is incredibly dishonest. Third, I have no idea how you make the mental leap from someone who opposes racial discrimination from a personal as well as judicial viewpoint to people who tried to wipe out an entire race. Finally, more binary thinking gone berzerk by asserting that there's anything in her statement that could possibly be construed to be against white people, much less something that leads down the path to killing people simply for being white.

        Take your medications.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.