Who is the racist?

Posted By: indie616
Posted on: May. 30, 2009 at 9:39 AM

36 Comments

3.7 / 5

Based on 3 ratings.

Email Friend

Add to Favorites Add to del.icio.us

del.icio.us

Digg It!

Slashdot It!

Across the Republican nation and here at Voice we have heard and read about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and her supposedly racist views.

On another thread I asked my fellow Voice contributors to show me her legal opinions and judgements that demonstrated a consistent pattern of "facist,racist" decisions.

Of course, my opponents pointed out the Ricci/New Haven firefighters case as prima facie case of her racism.

Sotomayor-- Decisions On Race Claims

However, (ignoring the Ricci case for now) in 96 cases of racial discrimination brought before Judge Sotomayor and her collegues, 78 were rejected. Of the remaining 18 cases, she agreed that 10 had merit, and the other 8 had other issues.

In the 10 cases favoring the claim of discrimination, the decision was unanimous 9 times.

Was this Racist?

One of Sotomayor's dissenting opinions from the majority involved a case of a NYPD office who was white. This officer was mailing out racist materials anonymously, was found out and subsequently fired. The majority said that was ok. Sotomayor did not agree. Pappas v. Giuliani

She warned the majority about “gloss[ing] over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives just because it is confronted with speech it does not like."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappas_v._Giuliani

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She particulated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/

More here for the open-minded:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/category/commentary-and-analysis/

Meet Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III

Otherwise known as Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. He is currently the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, which of course plays an important role in the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees.

Senator Sessions has quite a history in regards to racism-and not is a good way. He was denied a federal judgeship (nominated by Reagan) because it seems he had a little problem with some racist comments and actions.

Most famously, he said that he didn't think the KKK was so bad until he found out that they smoked pot. Ah, yes, the ole "burning cross-ok; burning weed-not" ideology of a old Confederate. He says it was a joke. Ummm Humm.

And it seems that a career Justice Department lawyer heard Senator Grand Wizard call a black male "boy" and he called a white civil rights lawyer "a disgrace to his race." He told a black co-worker that he "ought to be careful how he talked to white people." Sessions said he was joking. Umm hummm.

Oh, and for more hiliarity from comedian Sessions, we have his actions as a US Attorney. This is the infamous Marion Three case. Seems that in mid '80's in Alabama, more blacks were registering to vote. Session, as US Attorney thought there might be some voter fraud and investigated the hell out of the black districts. He came up with 14 supposed tampered ballots out of 1.7 million cast. (There was no investigation of the predominately white districts, even though there were rumors of fraud there.)

The case went to court. (One of the defendants was a former aide to Martin Luther King). It was decided in less than four hours to acquit.

Sessions has called called various civil rights groups "un-American" and the historic 1964 Voting Rights Act a piece of "intrusive legislation."

So, the Republican controlled Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 to deny his nomination from going to the floor for a vote.

Sessions turned to the good ole rednecks in Alabama who then voted him in as Senator in 1996 and with Arlen Spectors defection to the Democrats, now sits as the highest ranking minority (hee hee - Sessions a minority!) member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The same committee that voted to deny his racist ass a seat on federal bench!!

Ironic. I am not sure that Republicans should be using race as a Sotomayor talking point, but they haven't made too many good decisions lately so have at it "boys."

Click here to view more articles by indie616

Rate This Article | Create Account

Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.

Signup for an account

Comments:

1 2 3 4 Next »

postman

May. 30, 2009 at 01:18:08 PM

View Profile

IndiieTool

Tremendous cut & paste effort!

Almost makes one long for Adam.

Would this be considered racist to you if the reverse were said by one of those "Old white men" you so called progressives hate?

I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.

ladyjustice

Plese tell me you understand the meaning of the blindfold!

Report Abuse

indie616

May. 30, 2009 at 01:57:05 PM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by postman on May. 30, 2009 at 01:18:08 PM]

postman
May. 30, 2009 at 01:18:08 PM

IndiieTool
Tremendous cut & paste effort!
Almost makes one long for Adam.
Would this be considered racist to you if the reverse were said by one of those "Old white men" you so called progressives hate?
I would hope that a wise white...

View this Comment

Did you mean to cut and paste that "tripod" thingie?

Report Abuse

Phaedrus

May. 30, 2009 at 02:04:17 PM

View Profile

Postman, would 9 black and Latino Justices come up with the Plessy vs Ferguson "separate but equal"? That is the essence of what Sotomayor meant. No black judge would have said that what blacks needed were separate facilities. And I'm pretty sure, that since that separate but equal was later overturned (or legislated away from the bench) that we can infer that later judges felt that the previous ones lacked wisdom, right?

Report Abuse

postman

May. 31, 2009 at 05:25:25 AM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by Phaedrus on May. 30, 2009 at 02:04:17 PM]

Phaedrus
May. 30, 2009 at 02:04:17 PM

Postman, would 9 black and Latino Justices come up with the Plessy vs Ferguson "separate but equal"? That is the essence of what Sotomayor meant. No black judge would have said that what blacks needed were separate facilities. And I'm...

View this Comment

Phake

Now who are you or the KosKids to tell us what Sotomayor meant? We all heard what she said.

I suppose she really isn't a member of La Raza either. Of course we know that in college Alito was a member of a silly club so I guess thats a "wash" too.

MsTool

Don't know why the picture screwed up.

Report Abuse

Phaedrus

May. 31, 2009 at 08:00:15 AM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by postman on May. 31, 2009 at 05:25:25 AM]

postman
May. 31, 2009 at 05:25:25 AM

Phake
Now who are you or the KosKids to tell us what Sotomayor meant? We all heard what she said.
I suppose she really isn't a member of La Raza either. Of course we know that in college Alito was a member of a silly club so I guess thats a...

View this Comment

Uh, have you rear the entire paragraph from the transcript? What the larger message was?

Oh wait...

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

link:[www.nytimes.com]

that's the link

and another, from Crunchy Con
link:[blog.beliefnet.com]

Here is how Crunchy Con opens...
The NYT has a link to the entire speech in which she made the comment about the "wise Latina" reaching a "better" verdict than "a white male who hasn't lived that life." I'm still a bit troubled by the remark, but not in any important way. Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet -- and this is a key point -- she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality.

So, the reality is, the context of the panel where the comment was made was how people are raised and their race affects judges. She responded with a well thought out rationale response, of at least 1200 words. Where then Republicans parse out one sentence, out of context and claim she's a reverse racist when the fact is she saying throughout the paper the opposite. In fact she cites the quote about wise old man and wise old woman in the same paragraph.

But facts and reason won't penetrate the mind of a racist, or a Republican. Oh wait. That's the same thing.

Report Abuse

indie616

May. 31, 2009 at 09:40:32 AM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by postman on May. 31, 2009 at 05:25:25 AM]

How is she supposed to read the scales with that blindfold on?

Report Abuse

postman

May. 31, 2009 at 12:30:31 PM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by indie616 on May. 31, 2009 at 09:40:32 AM]

indie616
May. 31, 2009 at 09:40:32 AM

How is she supposed to read the scales with that blindfold...

View this Comment

Phake

So........The One is saying Sotamayor would have "restated" her words if she had it to do again, and we all know he is the master of restating his words, you still want to cling to the KosKids line?

Odumba was also for the fillabuster of Alito while a Senator, but now as POTUS, he thinks everyone should just let him have his way and not play the same political games he played. HYPOCRITE

IndieFool

Justice is supposed to be blind.

Just the facts.

Report Abuse

Phaedrus

Jun. 1, 2009 at 10:47:25 AM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by postman on May. 31, 2009 at 12:30:31 PM]

postman
May. 31, 2009 at 12:30:31 PM

Phake
So........The One is saying Sotamayor would have "restated" her words if she had it to do again, and we all know he is the master of restating his words, you still want to cling to the KosKids line?
Odumba was also for the fillabuster of...

View this Comment

Potsie, Indie was telling a funny? How can she read the scales?

And, did you bother to read the entire paragraph? Or even more, the entire transcript? Instead of having a kneejerk response, or letting Rushbo do your thinking for you, go read the transcipt, and see if the larger context of the statement makes sense, because she is basically saying that as a Judge, you try to leave yourself at the door, and follow the law. That is why so many of her colleagues on the 2nd court, Republicans and Democrats, have come out and said that she is just a good judge. That is why she ruled in favor of Merril Lynch on 1 class action suit, and then 6 mos later granted a class action suit against Merril Lynch, because she followed the law.

As for the line about appelate court Judges make policy, in America they do. When you have 2 parties arguing and citing 2, 3 or more laws, some state, city, or federal, at some point someone has to draw up policy. And since the city council, state legislators and feds all mucked i t up...

Report Abuse

Average American

Jun. 1, 2009 at 03:13:02 PM

View Profile

Indie,

Why is it not racist for her to say that she would have ruled "better" on a particular case based on her heritage, but if a White judge said the same thing it would have been considered racist?

In today's racially motivated America no White man would ever say such a thing. Now why is that?

Because we have been beat down with the racist, sexist, homophobe mantra so much that many are now scared to be proud of our heritage.

If the truth be known, Obama wouldn't have a country to screw up if not for White people, nor would there be a Supreme Court for her to sit her lily ass on. There wouldn't be a GM for Obama to run into the dirt, not a Chrysler nor a Ford (doesn't seem wierd that the only car maker to not take money from Uncle Barack is also the only one not filing chapter 11?) not to mention the fact that the only reason there is an America at all is because of a bunch of White Men.

A little thanks might be in order...

Report Abuse

ObamaInCharge

Jun. 1, 2009 at 03:57:27 PM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by Average American on Jun. 1, 2009 at 03:13:02 PM]

Average American
Jun. 1, 2009 at 03:13:02 PM

Indie,
Why is it not racist for her to say that she would have ruled "better" on a particular case based on her heritage, but if a White judge said the same thing it would have been considered racist?
In today's racially motivated America...

View this Comment

Let me answer you this way. Let's say that I am a single litigant suing Hilton for something, let's say always putting me into the haunted room whenever I book through their central reservations.

Now let's say this case works its way through the court system, and ultimately ends up in the Supreme Court, where there are 8 justices who came out of the hotel industry and all look like Rich Uncle Pennybags.

Now there is one justice there who does not look and act like all the rest.

I would hope that this guy makes a better decision about tenant rights than the rest of the Justices.

Likewise, let's say I'm some crackshot government lawyer like Miguel Estrada, and I'm prosecuting a RICO case against the mob. But 8 of the judges look like this.

I'm hoping I get a better decision from one of these guys.

So the point is that when Sotomayor is speaking to an audience about "seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination case," then yes I think a female minority who knows these things first hand will, more often than not, make a BETTER decision than a bunch of white guys who have read about it.

And in general, a court that is supposed to render decisions that affect all Americans should really look like all Americans. That would be BETTER.

Report Abuse

1 2 3 4 Next »