Perhaps conservatives have gone too far already in their criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Here is what Newt Gingrich said about her:
I think that the only reason she was nominated to the Court is because
she is Hispanic. I don't believe she would have been appointed had she been white. And
the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Obama.
The Washington Times criticized the selection as serving a "narrow partisan interest" and rejected the use of "life experience" as a defense for her selection:
As the nation waits to learn more about Sonia Sotomayor, the questions
will concern not so much her talent but her character. Even her rise
from poverty and racial isolation will be less interesting than how
that experience has affected her regard for other Americans and whether
she understands how their lives and rights are affected by law and
official action.
Oh, wait. What was that? Those were quotes from now Vice President Joe Biden and a New York Times editorial about Clarence Thomas. Nevermind.
I don’t think conservatives have gone far enough. Not only is she a racist, not only does she have a poor intellect, she also has a hard to pronounce last name! One of the conservatives suggested that she change it for the sake of all of us English speakers. Amen.
Rush Limbaugh, leader of the conservative movement:
“Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She’d be a disaster on the Court.
Do I still want to Obama to fail as President? Yeah, — AP, you getting this?
He’s gonna fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country.”
“Here you have a racist — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist,” Limbaugh said of Sotomayor on his show, alluding to the New York federal appeals court judge’s past statement 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.”
Liberals, “of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism,” Limbaugh said according to a transcript on his website. “Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power. … Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one.”
I love the smell of talking points in the morning. ;)
Reference a Rush quote and call him the leader of conservatives? Check
Pull some crazy blog quote with no identification and tar everyone with it? Check
Ignore the hypocrisy of the quotes from liberals? Check
Godless, Rush could be described as the entertaining attack dog of the conservative movement, but he is by no means the leader, if there even is one. It would be nice if Obama spent more time addressing his points to actual elected Republicans instead of focusing his attention and attacks on a talk show host.
Cin, I think the racist line is overplayed. It was a troubling comment that she made, but not out of the ordinary for a minority liberal or a liberal in general.
Obviously, Republicans are going to make noise (as Democrats would over any appointment by a Republican), but little will come of it. Unless some major bones are discovered in his closet, she will be appointed easily with most GOP supporting her.
I would like for you to please provide any evidence you have of any significant Republican or conservative attacking her as having a "poor intellect" or a link to the conservative saying she should change her name. Thanks!
Also, could both of you please explain how it is not hypocritical and shamelessly partisan for the NY Times and Joe Biden to attack Clarence Thomas as being a token pick, but the same ones praise Obama for his selection of Sotomayor, even acknowledging the play for Hispanic voters, but in this instance praising the political savvy of the President.
Hi Aaron and Cin:
Here's what I am taking from your conversation: Cin is saying that the right wing is UNFAIRLY criticizing Sotomayor, not that criticism of SCOTUS nominations in general is wrong. Aaron is saying that the specific criticisms Cin complained about are part of the kooky right and ought not be used to smear the right as a whole. This of course makes Limbaugh part of that kooky right
I hope Aaron is correct.
your friend
Keith
Keith
Limbaugh may be part of the "kooky right," but he has enough clout to force elected officials (as well as the chairman of the RNC) to back down when they dare to criticize him. He has millions of zombie "dittoheads" who seem willing to do his bidding when he seeks to impose his will on Republican officials, and has forced himself to the forefront of the wingnut base.
Aaron,
Your point is lost on most liberals. They just don't CARE that they and the liberal media are being horrific hypocrites. They can attack a minority candidate all day (Thomas) without the faintest whiff of being racist, but when the dumb GOP guys do it, they are alarmed.
The real issue is not that she is Hispanic, nor even that she was chosen specifically BECAUSE she is a Hispanic female that has acceptable qualifications. I don't even think that it's important that Obama cunningly picked her because he KNOWS that any criticism of her might make the critics look racist.
The real issue is that she is ideologically liberal, and thinks herself above the law and her position as judge. Rather than interpreting the law according to principle and the Constitution, she seems willing to interpret it in light of her own experience and feelings about equality. If that is so, THAT is dangerous.
And the real reasons that most of us GOP people are not happy with her is because the liberal judicial philosophy scares us, because the long term consequences might include:
– more support for government intrusion into parental authority (education, child raising and discipline, religious instruction)
– more support for infanticide and abortion
– loss of individual rights to free speech (hate speech legislation)
– government approval of immorality (homosexuality primarily)
These are reasonable fears. If she is as liberal on these issues as we assume, we fear for ourselves and our country. The path of murdering children, approving of immorality, punishing preachers of righteousness, and mandatory state 'moral' education (brainwashing) lead to more suffering for all.
Hi Keith,
"There's probably a realization — if there's not, there should be — that most Americans are unlikely to make a distinction between Republican activists and Republican elected officials. When the activists smear the first Latina nominee for the Supreme Court, it's the latter that will feel the electoral repercussions. The takeaway is "Republicans attack Sotomayor, using racist tactics." That's obviously a repugnant development for people of decency, but in a political context, it's a disaster for the party."
Also, here is an intellectually incisive comment from conservative G. Gorden Liddy regarding Sotomayor's qualifications…
"Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then."
Preach it brother Liddy!
Unless you are delusional, Sotomayer is a racist, as are all members of the treasonous La Raza -by definition- who’s motto is “For our race everything- for others, nothing”. Her record is nothing to shout about either, and frankly -if you’ve heard her speak- she’s not what you’d call a towering intellectual.
And clearly Eric Holder has some racial hangups and agenda too… as does Obama IMO, since his behavior betrays a wierd pro-Kenyan grudge against the British… and he’s the one who nominated all these kooks.
Whatever happened to the idea of a colorblind society? Team Obama define their world in racial terms all the time- and unlike any white people I know. I wouldn’t want to be judged by any of them after what I’ve heard come out of their own mouths- they sound like Jesse Jackson.
If Obama is going to go on with his “justice” agenda largely based upon race- the double standards need to stop, and NOW.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
Hi RR:
This link my clear up your misconception:
http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2009/…
your friend
Keith
>>> Oh master, since you can't Google it for yourself, I'm here to do your own research for you.
It's not that I can't Google for myself, but that you presented the charge, you should present the evidence.
Also, per your links I wouldn't say you did the research for me, you pointed me to some lefty blogs that collected some choices quotes by Republicans, some of which have little to no context.
However, I will say that it is idiocy to attack her intelligence and to make some horrific snide comment about menstruation.
But again, no one has really addressed the point I made with the post – the NY Times and VP Biden attacked a minority candidate for the very things for which they are praising Sotomayor. How about on the specific Hispanic issue, why were Democrats not "punished" for attacking and attempting to filibuster the first Hispanic Attorney General?
There is a huge double standard that you (liberals in general) do not seem to want to address and I don't blame you for trying to avoid it.
Yeah, right, "liberals in general" ignore double standards while conservatives, of course, are sin free. Need I point out, once more, the double standard conservatives (particularly Christians) hold regarding gay people? We've been over this numerous times. Gays' behavior is measured with a microtome while straights (causing far more damage to their families) get an almost free pass. What is it, 50% of new straight marriages end in divorce, yet it's gays who constitute a grave danger to the institution of marriage. Bah!
It all depends on where you stand and whose ox is being gored.
>>> Yeah, right, "liberals in general" ignore double standards while conservatives, of course, are sin free.
Where exactly did I say conservatives were free from double standards? They are as prone to them as anyone, however on this issue the liberals have a huge one that they refuse to acknowledge.
>>> Gays' behavior is measured with a microtome while straights (causing far more damage to their families) get an almost free pass.
Not from me they (we) don't. I have said repeatedly on here that the divorce rate among straights, particularly the divorce rate of professing Christians, has caused more damage than gays have.
My contention is and has always been that additional weakening is not the answer.
Hi Aaron:
You wrote: But again, no one has really addressed the point I made with the post – the NY Times and VP Biden attacked a minority candidate for the very things for which they are praising Sotomayor. How about on the specific Hispanic issue, why were Democrats not "punished" for attacking and attempting to filibuster the first Hispanic Attorney General?
Your complaint presupposes that the Democrats were equally UNFAIR when they criticized Thomas, that the charges against Thomas were equally unjustified. The mere fact that a minority member is criticized for not being competent isn't a problem–the question boils down to whether or not the charges are accurate. You seem to have conceded that the specific charges against Sotomayor (the ones you agree are part of the LOONY right) are unfair. I haven't seen you present evidence that the questions being asked about Clarence Thomas were equally unfair.
your friend
keith
Not from me they (we) don't. I have said repeatedly on here that the divorce rate among straights, particularly the divorce rate of professing Christians, has caused more damage than gays have.
Okay, you don't. But the majority of voices from your camp (evangelical/fundamentalist/conservative religious) does. Remember, I just lived though the infamous Prop 8 campaign here in CA, and I heard plenty. I still say that, to be consistent, your camp should be pushing hard for constitutional amendments banning divorce instead of focusing on the tiny minority of gay people (some 19,000 married couples here in CA out of millions of straight marriages). The fact that this is not happening, and will not happen, makes me doubt your motivations.
My contention is and has always been that additional weakening is not the answer.
And my contention is exactly the opposite: gay participation will strengthen rather than weaken marriage overall. Not only that, there is the issue of basic justice involved. This is why, to me, it's not really about marriage: that's just the symbol religious and political conservatives are using in their overall strategy to impose their conservative religious principles on the rest of us. Gay rights is the wedge issue your camp is using to attack everyone who opposes your social and political agenda. We are the scapegoats you use to divert attention from your own failings. It's really shameful.
>>> I haven't seen you present evidence that the questions being asked about Clarence Thomas were equally unfair.
Do you think Clarence Thomas is unintelligent, a token appointment and unable to render clearly reasoned decisions because of his background? I would think all of those are obviously false, so as to not need a defense.
I don't think Sotomayor needs to defend her being Hispanic, her intelligence and the pronunciation of her name. Those are either pointless or not worthy of response.
>>> You seem to have conceded that the specific charges against Sotomayor (the ones you agree are part of the LOONY right) are unfair.
I don't think all of the criticisms against her are unfair. I think criticizing her intelligence and the way she says her name are unfair.
I would note however that conservatives have criticized their own for a lack of intelligence worthy of the Supreme Court – Harriet Meyers. There is a difference between saying someone is unintelligent (Meyers is clearly not that) and being not up to the level of intelligence needed for the Supreme Court (Meyers was seen to not be that).
However, I do think she should be criticized and questioned toughly on some of her past statements in speeches and some of her rulings – just as all Supreme Court nominees should be.
>>> The fact that this is not happening, and will not happen, makes me doubt your motivations.
We agree that supporters of marriage did not do enough and do not speak enough against divorce. However, your standard for hypocrisy is a bit high.
One thing (attitude toward divorce) has already happened and will take years and years of work to try to undo, if it is even possible because of the cultural shift. The other (gay marriage) has not happened yet. You cannot expect people with limited time and resources to focus as much energy on an almost impossible political task versus an entirely feasible one.
I understand that you see the prevention of gay marriage as a wrong goal, but I don't believe you can hold the opponents of gay marriage at fault for not putting at much energy into erasing divorce.
But again, we agree that my side has not talked enough about the damage divorce has done to marriage.
>>> And my contention is exactly the opposite: gay participation will strengthen rather than weaken marriage overall.
I don't think that has been born out by the data from the places where gay marriage has been legalized.
>>> This is why, to me, it's not really about marriage: that's just the symbol religious and political conservatives are using in their overall strategy to impose their conservative religious principles on the rest of us. Gay rights is the wedge issue your camp is using to attack everyone who opposes your social and political agenda. We are the scapegoats you use to divert attention from your own failings.
If it's not about marriage, then why fight for it so much?
I have long said that I would support legislation that opens up things such as visitation, wills, etc. for gays and others. If you simply want those rights, then focus on that front and not on the marriage one.
You also do the very thing that you accuse my side of doing. You assume the very worst of your political opponent. You assume that they only want to use gay people and gay rights as an issue to achieve some other goal. What if that's not the case? What if the vast majority of the people actually support traditional marriage instead of oppose gay people?
I'm not sure how support for traditional marriage is a scapegoat to divert attention from our own failings. Could you explain what you mean by that?
You assume the very worst of your political opponent.
How not? After being the target of the religious right and their lapdogs in the Republican party for so long I've just lost trust. When people embark on a concerted effort to demonize me (eg, as dangerous to children, the family, and even the American way of life) and limit or remove my civil rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, why should I extend any level of compassion or understanding? Your assumptions about hx and hx people are enough to disqualify you, to my mind. I have, in effect, written you off: my hope is with the middle/independent voter and the young.
What if the vast majority of the people actually support traditional marriage instead of oppose gay people?
Actually, this statement is factually untrue (peruse recent polls please). But, I think of these as one and the same. Opposing my civil right to marry the person I love is opposition to me personally. It's part and parcel of the right's programme of persecution of gay people for political purposes.
I'm not sure how support for traditional marriage is a scapegoat to divert attention from our own failings. Could you explain what you mean by that?
It's not "support for traditional marriage," but your attempts to connect gay people with the failures of marriage and other "traditional" cultural institutions. There are plenty of forces which are changing society (divorce among them) which you could be fighting. Gays, however, represent a tiny, unpopular minority which are easy to exploit, and thus ready scapegoats to draw attention away from the forces which implicate straights. I'm sick of it.
>>> Actually, this statement is factually untrue (peruse recent polls please). But, I think of these as one and the same. Opposing my civil right to marry the person I love is opposition to me personally.
I was speaking of those you classify as against you, not the population in general.
If you see opposition to gay marriage as opposing you personally, why did you say it wasn't really about marriage to you, but about the rights it represented?
>>> There are plenty of forces which are changing society (divorce among them) which you could be fighting. Gays, however, represent a tiny, unpopular minority which are easy to exploit, and thus ready scapegoats to draw attention away from the forces which implicate straights. I'm sick of it.
I'm not "fighting" gays or blaming them for all the ways society is changing, not all of which are bad changes.
I do find it odd that you want to claim the "tiny, unpopular minority" mantle when it suits you, but claim the support of the masses when that is better. That is one of the sins for which you condemn Christians – the constant martyrdom syndrome.
Let's both stop stooping to "They're all coming to get us," as every group in the world can make some logical claims to that. But as of now, no one is coming to lock up or shut down either you or I.
It is a given that gays have endured more and harsher discrimination recently than Christians have, but it is also a given that cultural forces (music, movies, news, media in general) are more welcoming and accepting of the gay lifestyle than a conservative Christian lifestyle. Again, both sides have a point in that debate, but it is a fruitless one that sheds little light with a lot of heat.
I, for one, don’t want to impose my “lifestyle” on anyone. You or seeker or any other Christian are free to disapprove of me, even hate me, all you want, and that’s fine with me. I want to live and let live. Believe it or not, I have plenty of sympathy with Christianity (not all forms, of course), but I dislike intensely those types which seek to use the political and legal process to force their beliefs on me. Just because the gay “lifestyle” offends their beliefs many conservative Christians seem to believe that they have the right to encode their views contra hx into our legal systems. Why can’t they live and let live as well? If gay people want to step up and, finally, assume the social and cultural responsibilities of marriage, what skin is it off their noses? Why can’t they just mind their own business?
It may be that conservative xians are not getting a fair shake in popular culture, but I would ask them to examine their own actions in creating this climate. Narrow-minded, bigoted, self-righteous, insular, hostile to science and reason, judgmental – I could go on and on. Of course, not all of you are that way, but the most vocal and influential are, especially after they took over the Republican party. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Louis, are you in favor of enacting gay marriage with special conscience protections for religious groups? In other words, legislation that would say that there would not be any legal prejudice against a church which refuses to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies or allow such to take place in church facilities?
First, there's no evidence that churches would ever be forced to perform gay marriages. Under present law, churches can decline to marry anyone they want (eg, non-members). Second, I see no problem with enacting such legislation explicitly writing religious exemptions into law in order to reassure those people. (I may not agree with their bigotry, nor do I understand why they would want such bigotry formalized, but if that's what it takes, I'm for it!)
Hi Louis:
1. Seriously, what are they talking about when they say the "gay lifestyle"? Lifestyle? The gay people I know don't have one lifestyle, they live as different lives as any straight people I know, they just couple with people of their own gender instead of the opposite gender.
2. Christians ought not be using government power at all to promote Christianity; that kind of thing perverts Christianity more than it perverts society IMO.
3. Thank you for pointing out the obvious, that churchs are not obligated to perform marriages they don't approve of. The Catholic church doesn't have to marry divorced people and there is no reason to think that would change if gays were permitted to marry. In fact, I doubt that any gays would WANT to be married in a church that called their union an abomination, not when they could be married somewhere else.
your friend
Keith
I know it's been said before, but truly if you wish to engage with people and be influencing or convincing in any way, it will be helpful in any field to try to understand where those you are talking to are coming from.
Simply put, for those that believe that the bible is a direct revelation from the author of all creation, are compelled to come under it's authority, which includes calling homosexual practices sin. The bible is not at all unclear on this.
(Nor is the bible unclear that all people sin, and that all sin has exactly one result and one cure.)
That said, I think it's not exactly true that current exemptions protect churches from what you and others would call descriminatory practices. Here is an article from NPR that has a few of the more well known cases where homosexual marriage and churches or religious conscience objection has failed to protect free practice of religion.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor…
As it pertains to special conscience language, read this article by Michael Medved and tell me what you think. Is it off base? If so how? Is he fair handed in how he addresses the concept of universal rights and how the law must handle it?
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2009…
I would love some thoughtful response on that. While I think that there will always be outspoke bigots on both sides of this, I truly think that there is a LOT of room for common ground which would include free practice of religious conviction and equal protection under our laws and in our system.
I read the Medved article. What's the point of providing a "thoughtful analysis" of that? It was full of the usual talking points we've gone over many times. But what's most interesting here is that he argues against the provision you asked me about: including protections for churches against being forced to perform gay marriages. He maintains it's useless because the courts will force them anyway. So what's the point?
Here's my position: I don't think churches will be forced to perform gay marriages nor hire gay ministers. They already have this right, without judicial interference. Should one lawsuit get by a judge, do you really think it'd pass the Supreme Court? No. Churches are a special and protected class (eg, they are exempt from taxes), in this country at least. Plus, I can't imagine a gay couple who would want to marry in a church that so obviously and publicly hates their guts. This is a canard.
That being said, when religious folk move into the public square they no longer have any "special rights" which enables them to discriminate at will. Your flower shop owner operates under a government license, and must obey the law, religious or not. If he doesn't like Jews or blacks or left-handed people, he just cannot refuse them service and order them out of his shop. We all must live civilly along people we dislike or disapprove of: it's called civilization. At one time, Christians were the target of such mindless bigotry (still are in parts of the world). Is that just? How would you feel if you lived in say, Saudi Arabia or ancient Rome under Nero? According the Medved, if you were marginalized or persecuted under form of law in those countries by an aggrieved majority it'd just be tough luck.
I don't care whether you believe that the Bible is a "direct revelation" from God: your beliefs are your own business. But when you try to impose those beliefs on me – even if you are part of a majority – you cross the line into tyranny. And that is one of the reasons we have and independent judiciary, to protect the rights of a minority from the will of the majority. It's call checks and balances. If you don't like it, you might try Saudi Arabia or Iran or China where such impediments to popular will don't exist.
I read this after composing my reply. It just makes my blood boil, so I usually try not to think about it, but the issue of the most basic justice and, even, common human decency is involved. It's cruelty, plain and simple, that is the result of the supposedly principled stands taken by Christians. How can the tree be sound when it produces such rotten fruit? As it is, until these injustices are addressed, nothing the religious right can say will have any resonance to me.
"for the sake of all of us English speakers. Amen."
Those crazy conservatives. Heres a vote for the La Raza rep in de SCOTU.
I think this is meant:
1. The choice made in who they sleep with.
2. Christianity and politics do not mix well. But neither does SCOTUS appointees that shade constitutional findings with street justice. Standards apply both ways.
3. Is marriage only a contract between 2 people? Christianity feels diff on the matter. Evil :) secularists want to ignore that side of the question.
Nobama wrote:
is marriage only a contract between 2 people? Christianity feels diff on the matter. Evil :) secularists want to ignore that side of the question.
Irrelevant what your brand of Christianity thinks. We in America do not live under an xian theocracy (thank God!) and your narrow version of the faith doesn't get to dictate how the rest of us live. From my standpoint, your stance partakes of evil.