Byron York, Washington Examiner, July 15, 2009
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are convinced that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has not been candid with them in under-oath testimony about her speeches and legal activism. But given the assurance that majority Democrats will vote to confirm Sotomayor no matter what, the GOP effort against her is largely an attempt to convince other Republicans that Sotomayor has not earned a vote for confirmation.
{snip}
For example, in response to questioning from Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sotomayor denied involvement in PRLDEF litigation which argued that the denial of taxpayer-funded abortions amounted to a form of slavery. One brief, in 1980, compared the withholding of taxpayer abortion funding to the Dred Scott decision, and another, in 1992, argued that for poor women, especially blacks, denying taxpayer-funded abortion violated “the right to privacy in matters of body and reproduction—a right that was trammeled with state sanction during centuries of slavery.”
Sotomayor testified that she “never reviewed” and “wasn’t aware of what was said” in the abortion briefs. Yet Sotomayor served on PRLDEF’s litigation committee at the time, and a report last May in the New York Times, citing several former board members, said that, among the PRLDEF board, Sotomayor “stood out, frequently meeting with the legal staff to review the status of cases.” The paper reported that for Sotomayor’s entire 12 years on the board, “she played an active role as the defense fund staked out aggressive stances on issues like police brutality, the death penalty and voting rights.”
On capital punishment, in 1981 Sotomayor signed a PRLDEF memo opposing the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York State, arguing that “capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society.” On Tuesday, when Graham asked whether she had “challenge[d] the death penalty as being inappropriate punishment, because of the effect it has on race,” Sotomayor answered that she had “never litigated a death penalty case personally.”
“Did you ever sign a memorandum saying that?” Graham asked.
“I signed the memorandum for the board to take under consideration, what position on behalf of the Latino community the fund should take on New York State reinstating the death penalty in the state,” Sotomayor answered. “It’s hard to remember, because so much time has passed.”
On the issue of Sotomayor’s infamous 2001 “wise Latina” speech, Republicans are more skeptical now than before Sotomayor began her attempts to explain the remarks. In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the committee, Sotomayor said that the “wise Latina” remark was “a rhetorical flourish that fell flat. . . . . It was bad, because it left the impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that’s clearly not what I do as a judge.”
Republicans pointed out that Sotomayor gave versions of the “wise Latina” speech at least six times over the years. “Fell flat?” asked one senior GOP aide. “Well, it fell flat six times. If you said this one time, and it fell flat and you stopped using it, that would be one thing, but when you’ve said it repeatedly over a ten-year stretch, it’s very hard to believe that it is anything other than what it appears to be. It’s only fallen flat now that she’s been called on it.”
Democrats on the committee have not offered an extensive defense of the “wise Latina” remark, in part because they appear reluctant to acknowledge that Sotomayor actually said it. Early in Tuesday’s session, committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy substantially misquoted Sotomayor’s speech when he said to her, “You said that, quote, you ‘would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions. . . .’” In fact, Sotomayor said 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.” [Emphasis added.] If Sotomayor had said only what Leahy attributed to her, it is doubtful there would ever have been any controversy.
{snip}
Original article
(Posted on July 16, 2009)
Comments
At this point, telling the truth about Sonia Sotomayor isn’t about defeating her nomination, which won’t be possible. The reason for it is a subtle backhanded barb at President Obama and the Democrat Party, for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Hasn’t earned a vote for confirmation? She’s a Latina, and she has a compelling personal story. Isn’t that enough? It’s sad enough that she will be confirmed, but even sadder is the MSM (I know, I shouldn’t expect anything else) attempt to portray the Republicans as a bunch of befuddled, clueless, old rich white guys who are so desperate to cling to their fading power that they would DARE to question the qualifications of a poor, oppressed Latina. They would never dare to question a old, white male nominee in the same relentless, grueling way.
Republicans don’t believe her “stories”, yet Senator Jeff Sessions said Republicans will not stand in the way of the far leftist Democrats that support Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court. So, where does that leave American citizens who are white, especially white males? Isn’t it interesting? A known anti-white bigot is going to enter the Supreme Court, and millions upon millions of the people that it will affect do nothing. To my mind, this is interesting stuff. It involves so many phenomenon of human nature, that I can’t help but be interested. In fact, there should be support for a large scale study, on how it is that people whom this will directly affect, can act so unconcerned, because afterall, it does fly in the face of a primary principle of psychology—the instinct of survival.
“Well, it fell flat six times. If you said this one time, and it fell flat and you stopped using it, that would be one thing, but when you’ve said it repeatedly over a ten-year stretch”
At least she’s using her own words over and over. Many times these advocates for the left plagiarize each other. There have been a number of documented cases where, in separate forums, leftists have written the same print attacks, virtually word for word, in lengthy emotion laden prose.
“Republicans Don’t Believe Sotomayor’s Stories.”
She is about the clumsiest liar I’ve ever had occasion to observe in any hearing on anything and anybody.
Her 180 degree turn from the many racial statements she’s made fails miserably to even begin to sound convincing.
Listening to the ungodly compliments of her by the Democrats, a person becomes gradually aware that he is seeing a law-making body that is every bit as corrupt and dishonest as she is.
That white men of any political persuasion would agree to have something like her deciding vital cases to me is just another indication of the abject deterioration we have been seeing unfold before our eyes in the last 8 years, because there’s no question she’s anti-male and anti-white. And if her intelligence can be determined by her hare-brained, obvious obfuscations, when her many activist, racial speeches are presented to her, then she’s not qualified to handle small claims court, and certainly nothing any more important than that.
Up to this point there has always been a political balance of sorts where one side can’t assume complete control….until now. The country is imploding just as California is, but the overriding agenda of this radical leftist bunch is more important to them to pursue than concentrating on trying to keep the entire nation out of bankruptcy.
All we’re hearing now from the Republicans is that these fascist, socialist spending programs the left has passed, or is trying to get passed right now, are going to “put our children and grandchildren” into so much debt the burden will be awesome.
Leave it to the Republicans to point something out to people that is meaningless instead of warning everyone that we are headed for banana republic status in a couple, three years, which is a far greater threat than some vague debt, they think pointing out fuzzy future debt figures will win them supporters.
The left is running amuk, and their opposition is acting as managers as usual instead of employing down and dirty psychological warfare tactics that carry the ability to ruthlessly destroy the leftist agenda.
It’s coming down. Right now. The game is over. It’s just going to take going through the motions a bit longer before the balloon goes up.
“wise Latina” remark
I wonder how it would have been if she had said that a wise Latina could make better decisions than a Black man?
“Sotomayor signed a PRLDEF memo opposing the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York State, arguing that “capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society.””
Whites have been using capital punishment for centuries, if not thousands of years. It was applied to whites just for stealing horses. We are a law and order people and this philosophy is alien to most blacks and browns. They say it is unevenly applied but the fact is there are far more blacks and browns committing crimes that are punishable by the death penalty.
This is why our nation is falling apart. Not only do they not look like us, they don’t think like us, or behave like us. They cannot continue our culture and civilization. And the elites know that once we’re out of the way, they’ll be able to dominate and control the world quite easily.
Republicans believe in racial equality. Belief in racial equality is ultimately what is behind demands for “affirmative action.” After all, if the races are equal, black failure must be caused by some external factor.
This issue is not going away until the truth about race is accepted. Republicans show no signs of doing this.
#1 Question Diversity, I hate that strategy. It is one of those “we will allow this, because we will get this other better thing, in return”. How well has that strategy worked for Republicans for the last forty years? Just what IS, that “better thing” they have gotten in return? Was it forced busing, quotas, affirmative action, not just for African Americans, but for anyone who isn’t white, who entered this nation, today!! Or how about the “Protected groups” laws? A “protected group”, is anyone who isn’t white that entered the U.S. today. Yes, that strategy of compromise has really worked well for the rank and file in the Republican party. Hitching up with the Republican Party, is a losing propostion, if you’re not a member of a “protected group”. It’s kind of like being a fan of the baseball team that hasn’t won a World Series in the last 60 years, but much worse.
I don’t believe her either. Her perspective is UN American and foreign. Her English leaves much to be learned. Her bias has a long history and she does not deserve the appointment because there are many more qualified candidates. Mr.O nominated her to put his mark on the court. America deserves better. V
The real question her nomination brings up is, why in el nombre de Dios is Puerto Rico part of the United States at all? Doesn’t look like we won that war after all, does it?
I’m tired of waiting for them to vote for independence. Let’s give it to them right now!
Republicrats don’t beleive SotaMarxists stories? Well neither do democans, but neither give a rat’s. There’s not much substance to a tea party, when the party goers are all drinking the tea. [What constitution?] “As for me I regret I have only one life to give for my country”.”Give me liberty or give me death!”
It was really disappointing to see several high profile Republicans readying themselves to vote in favor of this mediocre and controversial nominee, Sen. Lindsay Graham leading the pack. Here is a brief analysis of this socio-political pathology:
http://www.geocities.com/readerswrite/commentaries/Sotomayor_controversy.htm
5 — ranger wrote at 6:21 PM on July 16:
She is about the clumsiest liar I’ve ever had occasion to observe in any hearing on anything and anybody.
That was what she meant when she said that Latina woman was smarter than a white male: she would lie (and benefit from her lying) while a white male would not.
This has been made possible by the Liberal invention of affirmative action and engineered diversity. More on this subject here:
http://tinyurl.com/SotoContro
“Whites have been using capital punishment for centuries, if not thousands of years. It was applied to whites just for stealing horses. We are a law and order people and this philosophy is alien to most blacks and browns.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Whites are not a “law and order” people. Whites are merciful people who believe deeply in the power of God’s grace to redeem people. This is true even for whites who don’t think they are Christians any more. We also believe that our freedoms are worth putting up with some less than orderly situations.
Asians are law and order people. Their societies are utterly stifling and I wouldn’t want to live in one.
None of this is to say that I don’t believe in capital punishment. I do think there are some cases that call for it. Let them meet their Maker to do with them as He will.
If a white male nominee stated that he believed that as a “wise white male” he was capable of making better decisions than a black or hispanic female the mainstream media and the radical leftist congress would burn him at the stake…
After reading yet another fawn over Sotomyho story in the local online newspaper, I decided to reply in the comments section.
I first pasted in the original “wise latina” statement then asked, “Isn’t this a racist statement?”
Next, I re-pasted and swapped a couple of words as follows:
“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life”
I then asked… “is this racist?” I concluded with a challenge to the newspaper censors to allow my post to stay up.
AS EXPECTED, within minutes of my post, the MSM wimps simply pulled the entire story.
Diversity is the STRENGTH of the spineless pandering fools who call themselves “journalists.” BTW, on the home page of this small newspaper is a LINK at the top to the LA RAZA online newspaper in Espanol.
Yeah, the republicans sure did roast her, didn’t they—the same way Judges Bork and Thomas were completely vilified and excoriated by the dems.
I was disgusted by the entire procedure and believe George Wallace was right more now than ever when he stated: “There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties!”
There is a good reason why I haven’t voted republican since Reagan, and have no plans to ever do so again.
BTW: When I read the article, :
“…For Peace and Justice to Be Realized, White People Must Be Reduced to a Minority..”
which is obviously hate speech and would certainly be labled as such if ‘White’ were replace with ANY other racial or ethnic group. Substitute ‘Jewish’, ‘black’, ‘hispanic’, ‘Asian’ for ‘White’ and see if the justice department, the adl and splc doesn’t knock on your door. You would certainly be accused of hate speech and if the new hate speech law goes into effect, which it will, you may find yourself facing a show trial and serious prison time just like those two British guys.
When I flagged the blog as ‘hate speech’ this is what came up on Google:
Hate Against a Protected Group
Blogger strongly believes in freedom of speech (except if you’re White).
We believe that having a variety of perspectives (White perspective not allowed) is an important part of what makes blogs such an exciting and diverse medium.
With that said, there are certain types of content that are not allowed on Blogger. While Blogger values and safeguards political and social commentary, material that promotes hatred toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity is not allowed on Blogger.
(Unless it’s Hate Speech against Whites, in that case, bring it on).
Please note that Blogger does not remove blogs for containing insults or negative commentary.
(Again, only if it’s directed against non-Whites, hate speech against Whites if fine)
I flagged the blog anyway but couldn’t find anywhere where I could add commentary and question Google as to why such an article is OK with them.
Bon
The republicans ( Lower case intended) may not be able to stop her appointment but they sure as HELL better vote against it. The owe us at least that much.
#11
Noooooo!!!
Independence for Puerto Rico would be a disaster. The island is only kept afloat by US welfare (1/2 of the population is on food stamps, for example, and Puerto Ricans get cash instead of stamps.)
Without Uncle Sam’s generous bribes to stay put, the entire population of the island would move here. They’re US citizens, remember? And it’s probably a safe bet that those who still reside in PR are the dumber ones.
(Don’t suggest we take their citizenship away as part of independence. That would only mean they would all migrate here at once before the deadline.)
“Independence for Puerto Rico would be a disaster”
A long time ago when I moved to this state, we lived in an apartment complex while looking for reasonably priced house.
One day, got a new neighbor, white man in his early 50s.
Got to talkin and turns out he is the new head-honcho at the Seattle FBI office…just got back from a long stint as the FBI head honcho in Puerto Rico. He and his wife were also looking to buy a house.
We talked off and on for couple of months. Just about everytime he would go off on a tirade about the absolute lawlessness in PR and how GLAD he was to be outa there. Add to that his comments that the PRs hated the white “overlords” from the US while simultaneously coveting the cash handouts from the US massas. Yea, Sotomyho is definitely a descendant.
19 — Taurus689 wrote at 12:50 PM on July 17:
I echo that sentiment. Sheer Democrat numbers will overwhelm the Republicans who choose to vote against the Wise Latina. But… if there are those Republicans who just want to go along and get along and vote for her, what will happen is that the Democrats will point to the “bipartisan” support for the nomination. No blame could ever be attached to the Democrats. They will have cover.
I live in Québec city, Canada, and I’ve been following this whole Sotomayor thing on cable t.v. news and on the web. And I have to say, I’m becoming scared! I mean, America is the most powerful country among Western democracies, but it’s decaying, and becoming like a world turned upside down!
Seriously, I ask: what the hell is going on in America? The United States are now being controlled by minorities of colored people. Colored people with values diametrically opposed to Western values, in many cases.
But those minority activists, like Sonia Soto… whatever! it’s like they never know when enough is enough; after years and years of things such as affirmative action, and OJ Simpson being acquitted of the absolutely brutal murder of his wife (by a black jury), and countless other nonsensical and unfair things of the like, now, what’s it going to be? Financial reparations for Blacks AND Hispanics (but for what?)? Or universities such as Yale, Harvard and Princeton becoming minorities-only schools???
How far will it go? It’s like there is no stopping them. And if a white person publicly takes a stand, the media are going to call them ignorant, racist, etc. Hell, with this new hate Bill I read about, it seems like they could be sued!
Man, now, even your Republican party has a black chairman, Michael Steele, who openly says he «strongly supports affirmative action»…
This is becoming seriously scary!
If you want the Republican senators to vote against Sotomayor, just tell them that she is opposed to outsourcing American jobs and that she supports labor unions. That should get them to vote against her.
