Support NeoGAF

[ClovingWestbrook]

Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in January 1984 during a conversation with Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman. Jackson at first denied the remarks, then accused Jews of conspiring to defeat him. When he finally did acknowledge that it was wrong to use the term, he said he did so in private to a reporter.[28] Finally, Jackson apologized during a speech before national Jewish leaders in a Manchester, New Hampshire synagogue, but continuing suspicions have led to an enduring split between Jackson and many Jews.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org

/wiki/Jesse_Jackson

In 2002, when asked about his daughter Cynthia McKinney using an old endorsement in her failing primary campaign, he explained that the endorsement would not matter because "Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J-E-W-S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson

"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944,

"He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."
-- California State Senator Diane Watson's on Ward Connerly's interracial marriage
^ Elder, Larry (March 27, 2002). "The 'B' word and disrespect". World Net Daily. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26994. Retrieved on 2009-04-28.

In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master ... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."
Henry Bellafonte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Belafonte

Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write."
— Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax

Here are a few examples of dems and racism.

 

[Learn2read]

In Clinton's case, sure

I thought it was still undetermined whether Hillary's wide hips crushed Vince Foster in a fit of pashion or cold blooded malice.

 

[bishoptl]

And I am still waiting for your long list showing the republican party is a party of racism and sexism.

I am simply trying to show that both parties have and continue to have moments of racist/sexist issues. Also that both parties have been guilty of the same issues.

You can't move the goalposts and I won't let you off the hook that easily.

Jesse Helms
White Hands ad

George HW Bush
Willie Horton ad

Trent Lott
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott issued a written apology Monday evening over his comment that the United States would have avoided "all these problems" if then-segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948.

Richard Nixon
For the 1968 election, Nixon advisor Kevin Phillips devised a "southern strategy" in which Republicans sought to break the Democratic hold on the south by opposing the regionally loathed civil rights movement. The strategy worked - Nixon beat Democrat Hubert Humphrey by over 100 electoral votes. Along with the more visibly racist 3rd party candidate George Wallace, he shut Humphrey out of most of the south and helped to affirm the foundation of today's cultural divide.

Greg Aydt
Elected Republican Harris County Precinct Chairman who blogs as "Rhymes With Right." The article has the quaint title: “Sekula-Gibbs Supports Public Safety – Pro-Wetback Council Members Play Politics.” He then goes on to accuse Councilwoman Ada Edwards of "scrambling for a few more Hispanic votes like they were crack rocks."

"Where are the peacemakers from the Religion of Peace? All I see are jihadi swine."

"Sorry, no respect for any ethnicity or religion with this scumbag...Just following the example of Muhammad, I guess. I recall that he liked sex with little girls, too. Would somebody please remind me what is there in Islam that is good and noble?"

Haley Barbour
Some of Barbour's roots were exposed this month when it was reported that a photo of Barbour is on the home page of the Council of Conservative Citizens, the racist group that is an offshoot of the old segregationist white citizens councils that tried to hold back the civil rights movement. The photo was taken at a county political barbecue. Barbour is pictured along with five other men, including CCC field director Bill Lord. Barbour has refused to ask the CCC to take the photo of him off its home page. "I don't care who has my picture," Barbour was quoted as saying in an Associated Press article. He continued: "Once you start down the slippery slope of saying `That person can't be for me,' then where do you stop? Old segregationists? Former Ku Klux Klan like Robert Byrd?"

David Duke
David Duke was a grandwizard of the Ku Klux Klan and-one term state representative who went on to run for Governor of Louisiana, but was defeated when former Governor Edwin Edwards entered the race and won, despite having been indicted for fraud and bribery during a prior term (1984-1988) in office. Duke won nearly 40% of the vote.

Paul R Nelson/Vernon Robinson (proving the Stockholm Syndrome assessment may not be far off the mark)
Republican challenger and political newcomer Paul R. Nelson has taken his race against five-term U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-La Crosse) to apparently new territory in Wisconsin politics. Consider his latest video advertisement, which is so far too lewd to find a home on television in western Wisconsin's 3rd Congressional District.

"Ron Kind has no trouble spending your money, he'd just rather spend it on sex. That's right. Instead of spending money on cancer research, Ron Kind voted to spend your money to study the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes. Instead of spending money to study heart disease, Ron Kind spent your money to study the masturbation habits of old men," states the 80-second "sex study" ad Nelson has posted on his campaign Web site.
It is an ad, Nelson boasts, that "the mainstream media won't show!"

"Ron Kind," the ad continues, "even spent your tax dollars to pay teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia. Ron Kind pays for sex but not for soldiers."

Ken Blackwell
The e-mail, obtained by The Dispatch, was sent to an undisclosed group of GOP supporters - with instructions to forward it to others - by Gary Lankford, whom the party hired in July as its “social conservative coordinator”… Among other things, the e-mail says Strickland married his wife, Frances, at 46, has no children and lives apart from her. It also links readers to an Internet blog that directly questions the sexual orientation of both Stricklands and notes accusations he is “soft on those who sexually assault children.”

From just over 4 decades ago to present day, and that's just off the top of my head. The big tent welcomes all

 

[Hootie]

The Politics of Sotomayor

by Dylan Loewe
This morning President Obama announced Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the United States Supreme Court. In his press conference unveiling the choice, Obama described Sotomayor as an inspiring woman with a distinguished career, holding a "depth of experience and a breadth of perspective."

Though their numbers have dwindled in the Senate, the Republican party is not entirely devoid of options to block the nomination. Sotomayor will first need approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee before she can be voted on by the entire Senate. Though a majority vote is usually all that's required for a committee to advance a bill to the floor of the Senate, an obscure rule requires that judicial appointments be approved by a majority that includes at least one member of the minority party. In the case of Sotomayor, that means she'll need one Republican member of Judiciary to vote her to the floor.

That might draw excitement from conservative activists, but it's not likely that Sotomayor will lose a party-line vote of the judiciary committee. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a key Republican vote on the committee, has already suggested an unwillingness to block the nomination. And Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), another Republican member of the committee, has already voted to confirm Sotomayor once before (for the Second Circuit eleven years ago) making it unlikely he'll oppose her this time. By the time she makes it to the floor of the Senate, Al Franken will likely have been seated in Minnesota, providing the Democrats with a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority. At that point, and without the filibuster option, Republicans will be powerless to prevent Sotomayor's confirmation.

Still, the GOP is angling for a fight. Among the few who graced Obama's short list, Sotomayor was largely considered the most progressive of the bunch. But as the Republican leadership gears up, they may be walking squarely into another political trap, carefully designed by the president. Should she be confirmed, Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic on the bench, chosen at a time when the Hispanic vote has emerged as a critical component to sustaining a Democratic majority over the long-term.

Already in 2008, Hispanic voters, who represent the fastest growing minority population in the country, were responsible for a dramatic political realignment. In the wake of an anti-immigrant nativism that came to define the Republican presidential nominating contests, Obama won two-thirds of the Hispanic vote, fourteen points higher than John Kerry's share four years earlier. That meant wins in states like New Mexico and Colorado, Nevada and Florida, and it meant an insurmountable electoral margin for Obama. The president recognizes that if the Democratic party can turn Hispanic voters into a loyal bloc of supporters, they can continue to expand their margins around the country, even in places as conservative as Texas, driven almost entirely by Hispanic population growth.

Will nominating the first Hispanic justice to the high court further Obama's courtship of the Hispanic community? It certainly can't hurt, though it's hard to imagine that it alone will do the job. But Obama may stand to gain more, not from corralling a majority of Democrats to vote in favor of Sotomayor, but from inspiring the most virulent elements of the Republican party to oppose her.

The Republican leadership has already indicated that they view the fight over Obama's Supreme Court nominee as a good opportunity to unify their base and that, among those on the short list, they were most eager to go after Sotomayor. But if they follow through, if they do decide to spend the next two and half months waging an impossible fight against a nominee whose confirmation is all but guaranteed, they may cause permanent damage. If the Hispanic community abandons the Republican party altogether, the Republican party can abandon any hope of regaining power in American politics.

Besides, Sotomayor is not that easily assailable. While her credentials are undeniably liberal, she was originally nominated to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush. She has top notch academic credentials, having attending Princeton and Yale Law School, and has more experience on the federal bench than any nominee to the bench in the last half century.

Still Republicans have made a sport out of fighting unwinnable political fights to their detriment. It's the bread and butter of their new brand of politics.

Over the coming months, it would be unwise to expect anything less.

Fight republicans; fight to the dirty, gritty, bitter end. It'll only be a matter of time before the dems start making Texas a battleground state.

 

[bishoptl]

Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write."
— Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax

What position does Mike Wallace hold in the Democratic party again? You'll have to refresh my memory.

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944,

In 1997, he told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics, but to "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena." In his latest autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."

Byrd also said, in 2005,
“ I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened. ”

— Robert C. Byrd,

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

stuff

So you posted repubs and I posted dems examples. This is exactly what I said from the beginning, each side has their examples of racism and sexism.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

What position does Mike Wallace hold in the Democratic party again? You'll have to refresh my memory.

Regarding Byrd, I never said he didn't apologize as that wasn't debated. His example still stands. I am sure that some of the examples out there from repubs that are used by you include some of their apologies as well.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

Jesse Helms
White Hands ad

Everything else in your post makes a good point, but I never understood what was supposed to be so bad about this one. It identifies an evil practice supported by a candidate for office and makes it known to the electorate. I see nothing sinister in it.

 

[bishoptl]

What position does Mike Wallace hold in the Democratic party again? You'll have to refresh my memory.

One more for your files, Mr Steam.

A week before his Klan confessional, 14 Republican Senators refused to sign a harmless, non-binding Senate resolution apologizing for lynching. The GOP senators gave no coherent reason why they refused to sign. The resolution did not mandate victim restitution, call for tougher hate crime legislation, or criticize the GOP for its part in helping to beat back a lynching law. A unanimous Republican vote on the lynching resolution would have sent a strong signal that the GOP will do whatever it takes to wipe the dirty stain of racial violence from America’s past and present, and not just talk about it.

So you posted repubs and I posted dems examples. This is exactly what I said from the beginning, each side has their examples of racism and sexism.

Now you're obfuscating. I told you that the Republicans have and continue to use race-baiting as a central pillar of their political strategy. You haven't shown anything different.

 

[APF]

Trent Lott also apologized for his comment.

 

[charlequin]

Roberts passed through with barely a scratch. Democrats focused their ire on Alito. The same trajectory could very well happen for Obama's picks - little opposition to the first, with excess munitions leveled at the potential second.

Will.

Oh, nothing ground breaking, just the typical

Honestly, you're not doing us any favors by arguing that corporate land-snatches enabled through specious Eminent Domain grounds are legitimate. JayDubya's on the right side on this one.

Any legitimacy to the claim that some of her judicial written opinions are problematic in terms of the reasoning? I heard she has sloppy, unpresuasive opinions on some news show by some pundit.

Bullshit that came out of Jeffrey Rosen's anonymously-sourced whisper campaign. No story there.

OMG!! The Republicans accidently forwarded their talking points against Sotomayor to the media. :lol :lol

Those are terrible talking points. I was expecting something that at least tried to make a case (say, by zeroing in on her remarks about "making policy.") That's just a list of "things Republicans are afraid of liberal justices instituting." No shit, sherlock.

By the time she makes it to the floor of the Senate, Al Franken will likely have been seated in Minnesota, providing the Democrats with a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority. At that point, and without the filibuster option, Republicans will be powerless to prevent Sotomayor's confirmation.

Now THAT'S worth a laugh.

 

[PantherLotus]

So you posted repubs and I posted dems examples. This is exactly what I said from the beginning, each side has their examples of racism and sexism.

No, that is not "exactly what [you] said from the beginning." You were suggesting that each is equally racist and sexist and you attempted to pre-diffuse any anti-Hispanic rhetoric against Sotomayor before it occurs, saying, "no, BOTH PARTIES DO IT!"

You're still wrong.

 

[GhaleonEB]

The Politics of Sotomayor

Fight republicans; fight to the dirty, gritty, bitter end. It'll only be a matter of time before the dems start making Texas a battleground state.

The 60-vote Dem block is a great media myth.

Another take, from Sullivan, that I thought read into some of the specifics pretty well.

Stu Taylor ponders the shrewd politics of Obama's choice:

The Republican dilemma is underscored by the fact that the Sotomayor actions they might be most eager to attack are themselves especially likely to engage the sympathies of Hispanic voters. In a 2001 speech that I have criticized, for example, Judge Sotomayor suggested that "a wise Latina 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." This will strike many Republicans as the essence of the ethnic and gender stereotyping that liberals once properly abhorred. But with Republicans already in danger of being seen as the white-male party, rushing to the defense of white males may not be a winning argument politically.​

This president is more cunning than he might seem. Today's news photos of Sotomayor are also strikingly attractive and charismatic. You can imagine how this pick plays in the West and Southwest. As shrewdly as the Huntsman pick for China, this is both a defensible policy pick and a brilliant piece of domestic politics. The visuals of Jeff Sessions laying into her will not help the GOP in exactly those places it desperately needs. Advantage: Obama.

From a purely political stance, the GOP is in a lose-lose here.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Trent Lott also apologized for his comment.

exactly

 

[bishoptl]

Trent Lott also apologized for his comment.

Of course. Compare a statement like

"A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past," Lott said. "Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."

with Robert Byrd's apology that I quoted earlier, and I'd certainly put them on the same level as well.

 

[gkryhewy]

This president is more cunning than he might seem.

that's un possible :lol

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

thanks for telling me what i was going to do especially when the anti hispanic sentiment never crossed my mind. i said they both do it and many of you have argued the repubs are worse. you have yeyt to show how one party is more recist/sexist than the other.

sorry about the spelling mistakes, on my cell. also this was in response to the thread creators last response.

 

[scorcho]

Mike Wallace and Harry Belafonte - spokesmen for the DNC?

Also, I'm loathe to trust anything out of Ronald Kessler's pen or typewriter. Didn't he also accuse LBJ of being serviced by a host of secretaries that he kept at the White House for his sexual bidding?

And to add another point about LBJ - he not only signed the most sweeping civil rights legislation in this country's history, but was largely responsible for laying the groundwork during his time in the Senate. Was there some calculation about black voter optics and voter trends? Probably, but Johnson also had some very deep convictions about social justice and fairness, which was shocking considering his geographical background. See: Masters of the Senate.

Robert Caro >> Ronald Kessler

 

[JayDubya]

The first two things bish posted were policy ads, and I'm not sure why he thinks they're relevant.

Or the "Southern Strategy" itself, for that matter.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The 60-vote Dem block is a great media myth.

Another take, from Sullivan, that I thought read into some of the specifics pretty well.


From a purely political stance, the GOP is in a lose-lose here.

The visuals of Jeff Sessions laying into her will not help the GOP in exactly those places it desperately needs

Wow I hadn't thought of that. This is going to be interesting as hell

 

[bishoptl]

The first two things bish posted were policy ads, and I'm not sure why he thinks they're relevant.

Why don't you just ask me?

Those Republican policy ads are based in the well-known political practice of dog-whistling...but you knew that already.

 

[Funky Papa]

I am not sure if this deserves a new thread, so...

Bush's biblical prophecy emerges: God wants to "erase" Mid-East enemies, Gog and Magog hard at work

The revelation this month in GQ Magazine that Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary embellished top-secret wartime memos with quotations from the Bible prompts a question. Why did he believe he could influence President Bush by that means?

The answer may lie in an alarming story about George Bush's Christian millenarian beliefs that has yet to come to light.

In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France's President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated.

...

Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:

"This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins".

The story of the conversation emerged only because the Elyse Palace, baffled by Bush's words, sought advice from Thomas Romer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne. Four years later, Romer gave an account in the September 2007 issue of the university's review, Allez savoir. The article apparently went unnoticed, although it was referred to in a French newspaper.

The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush's invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and "wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs".

In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on "a mission from God" in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord.

What the Christ?

 

[JayDubya]

Why don't you just ask me?

Those Republican policy ads are based in the well-known political practice of dog-whistling...but you knew that already.

I'm familiar with both the term and the resultant snide accusations.

If only because I'm so frequently accused of using code when, why no, I explicitly am defending states rights, thanks.


Do you think the Harold Ford ad talked about around here a few years back was racist code, too?

 

[Learn2read]

Mike Wallace and Harry Belafonte - spokesmen for the DNC?

Also, I'm loathe to trust anything out of Ronald Kessler's pen or typewriter. Didn't he also accuse LBJ of being serviced by a host of secretaries that he kept at the White House for his sexual bidding?

And to add another point about LBJ - he not only signed the most sweeping civil rights legislation in this country's history, but was largely responsible for laying the groundwork during his time in the Senate. Was there some calculation about black voter optics and voter trends? Probably, but Johnson also had some very deep convictions about social justice and fairness, which was shocking considering his geographical background. See: Masters of the Senate.

Robert Caro >> Ronald Kessler

Didn't he say, as he was signing the Civil Rights act, something to the effect of "well, looks like we've lost the south for a generation" (which proved to be pretty prophetical as the GOP didn't hesitate to seize the opportunity). There didn't seem to be much political calculation behind it.

Kinda surprising giving the general temperment of the man and his background.

 

[charlequin]

Or the "Southern Strategy" itself, for that matter.

You don't see how the deliberate adoption of racially-motivated dog-whistle politics is relevant to a discussion of which party may have a stronger recent history of racism?

I would think an attempt to distance yourself from bullshit dog-whistle "states' rights" would be more beneficial to your actual policy positions than defending people who use "states' rights" as code for racism and thereby render the term useless for describing your own positions.

 

[syllogism]

The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush's invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and "wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs".

It was published in March and no one picked it up until now? Color me skeptical, at least as far as the details go.

 

[bishoptl]

I'm familiar with both the term and the resultant snide accusations.

If only because I'm so frequently accused of using code when, why no, I explicitly am defending states rights, thanks.

Dunno if you're referring to me explicitly when it comes to snide accusations. I don't believe I've ever done that to you.

Anyways, time for lunch.

edit: Regarding the Harold Ford ad - most of the ad is based on policy differentiation which is absolutely fine. The white woman's "playboy party" quote is the definition of dog-whistle politics at work. I don't see what that or "call me!" from the same woman has to do with tax policy, gun restrictions or privacy legislation. But the image of a white woman cavorting with a black man? Code politics at its best - or worst, depending on the POV.

 

[Hootie]

Huh, so Maddow is on MSNBC right now. Do all of these evening show hosts/hostesses just chill out at the studio all day or is there something I'm missing?

 

[JayDubya]

Dunno if you're referring to me explicitly when it comes to snide accusations. I don't believe I've ever done that to you.

No, and you haven't, and I'm not going to pick on anyone in particular there because that just causes more trouble. :lol

 

[Squirrel Killer]

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

A wise quote. White men often can't put themselves in the position of minority females and judge accurately in these situations. It is a very good thing to have this perspective on the court.

It's such a horrible quote, I can only hope it was taken out of context (and I'm guessing it probably was.) As stated, it paints the picture in absolutes, that a Latina woman's conclusion is better than a white man's. That's as ridiculous as saying a white man's conclusion is better than a Latina woman's.

Now, in a case where you've got 8 male opinions to 1 female opinion and 8 white to 1 minority, then replacing one of those 8 male/white opinions with a female and minority voice will make the conclusion more diverse. That is certainly good for the SCOTUS.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

Why don't you just ask me?

Those Republican policy ads are based in the well-known political practice of dog-whistling...but you knew that already.

I can see how that applies to the Willie Horton nonsense, but I'm still not sure what you believe is being "implied" by the first ad.

 

[Learn2read]

I'm familiar with both the term and the resultant snide accusations.

If only because I'm so frequently accused of using code when, why no, I explicitly am defending states rights, thanks.

Well the person who pushed the phrase into the modern vocabulary admitted it was done as a dog whistle code word, the fact you have taken it up as a rebel yell without even knowing who your comrades are just speaks to the inherant silliness of your worldview.

 

[reilo]

Anyways, time for lunch.

The best thing said in this thread for a long time.

 

[APF]

Of course. Compare a statement like

with Robert Byrd's apology that I quoted earlier, and I'd certainly put them on the same level as well.

Lott made a lot of statements of contrition, including while appearing on BET. Also, making a meaningless comment he likely didn't even realize the implications of is leagues different than actually being a KKK member. There's really no comparison, and it does your argument a great disservice to excuse Byrd but not Lott.

 

[JayDubya]

Well the person who pushed the phrase into the modern vocabulary admitted it was done as a dog whistle code word, the fact you have taken it up as a rebel yell without even knowing who your comrades are just speaks to the inherant silliness of your worldview.

Modern vocabulary? The issue's been contentious since the nation's inception. All I contend is that Jefferson and Madison had the right of it, and that even their staunchest opponents would not support how far that balance has shifted.

 

[GitarooMan]

Not a bad choice, but I wish Obama had worked up the balls to pick someone outside the federal judicial system.

 

[The Librarian]

Huh, so Maddow is on MSNBC right now. Do all of these evening show hosts/hostesses just chill out at the studio all day or is there something I'm missing?

That isn't all you're missing.

Spoiler

Snap.

 

[GhaleonEB]

It's such a horrible quote, I can only hope it was taken out of context (and I'm guessing it probably was.) As stated, it paints the picture in absolutes, that a Latina woman's conclusion is better than a white man's. That's as ridiculous as saying a white man's conclusion is better than a Latina woman's.

Now, in a case where you've got 8 male opinions to 1 female opinion and 8 white to 1 minority, then replacing one of those 8 male/white opinions with a female and minority voice will make the conclusion more diverse. That is certainly good for the SCOTUS.

The part of the quote I'd like to see in full context is, "who hasn't’t lived that life". What life? It sounds like she's comparing the different life history of a Latina woman and a white man and saying they'd have different enough life experiences to shape their judgments and interpretations differently. Which is reasonable. The "would more often than not reach a better conclusion" also needs context. Better conclusion about what? If it's a blanket statement, that's a problem. If it was about a specific kind of issue, that's different.

Anyone found a link to the full speech being excerpted here?

 

[Learn2read]

Modern vocabulary? The issue's been contentious since the nation's inception. All I contend is that Jefferson and Madison had the right of it, and that even their staunchest opponents would not support how far that balance has shifted.

and was pretty much dormant between the civil war and the civil rights movement...hmm, what's the common factor here, I can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[PantherLotus]

Not a bad choice, but I wish Obama had worked up the balls to pick someone outside the federal judicial system.

I'm not sure that:

1) requires "balls"
2) matches anything we know about President Obama, noted Constituional Scholar/Professor.

 

[JayDubya]

and was pretty much dormant between the civil war and the civil rights movement...hmm, what's the common factor here, I can't quite put my finger on it.

Yes you can, so go ahead and put your finger on it.

One factor, of course, would be a secession attempt being hammered down, thus thoroughly kicking the entire idea of states having much authority in the chops, whatever the Constitution might or might not say.

 

[charlequin]

It's such a horrible quote, I can only hope it was taken out of context (and I'm guessing it probably was.)

Context (embedded in a relatively nonsense race-baiting blogpost) here. She's explicitly responding to a quote by Sandra Day O'Connor claiming that a wise man and woman should reach the same conclusion in any given case (something I'd already disagree with) and seems to me to be suggesting that someone with life experience relevant to a given case would make a better ruling, rather than that a "wise Latina woman" would automatically make a superior ruling to a white man in every imaginable case.

 

[scorcho]

Yes you can, so put your finger on it.

How very sexy!

 

[bishoptl]

Lott made a lot of statements of contrition, including while appearing on BET. Also, making a meaningless comment he likely didn't even realize the implications of is leagues different than actually being a KKK member. There's really no comparison, and it does your argument a great disservice to excuse Byrd but not Lott.

Nuh uh. Lott doesn't get to skate - he knew exactly what he was saying.

Though it had deep roots in Southern politics and claimed 15,000 members — more than the Ku Klux Klan has boasted for decades — the white-supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) was a mystery to most Americans until 1998. Late that year, a scandal erupted over prominent Southern politicians' ties to the brazenly racist group.

At first, even the politicians in question claimed they didn't know what this Council was all about. Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, who had spoken to the group five times, once telling its members they "stand for the right principles and the right philosophy," claimed he had "no firsthand knowledge" of it.

No conservative leader expressed stronger outrage than Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, a powerful right-wing lobbying group. Connor told CBS that he and others on the right were furious because Lott's "thoughtless remarks ... simply reinforce the suspicion that conservatives are closet racists and secret segregationists."

Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Alright, soup time!

 

[APF]

So... Byrd and the Democrats who lay with him are covered in fleas?

 

[GitarooMan]

I'm not sure that:

1) requires "balls"
2) matches anything we know about President Obama, noted Constituional Scholar/Professor.

Requires "balls" because polls show the masses overwhelmingly want (incorrectly IMO) federal judges to take Justice positions. There are tons of talented people outside the federal judicial system who have a vast amount of legal knowledge and could be excellent Justices.

Not sure why being a Constiutional Scholar/Professor has anything to do with having to pick a federal judge.

 

[GhaleonEB]

It's such a horrible quote, I can only hope it was taken out of context (and I'm guessing it probably was.) As stated, it paints the picture in absolutes, that a Latina woman's conclusion is better than a white man's. That's as ridiculous as saying a white man's conclusion is better than a Latina woman's.

Now, in a case where you've got 8 male opinions to 1 female opinion and 8 white to 1 minority, then replacing one of those 8 male/white opinions with a female and minority voice will make the conclusion more diverse. That is certainly good for the SCOTUS.

Just found the entire lecture. The quotes being circulated are indeed yanked out of context. There is nothing to see here. The relevant portion:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. 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. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor -- I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area - Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.​

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

Can someone explain the white hands ad to me? I honestly cannot see how it's an example of political "Dog-Whistling." There is no need to imply anything when the policy it is describing is awful in and of itself. What else is there to hide behind "code"?

 

[PantherLotus]

Not sure if you guys caught this earlier, but I just remembered Chris Matthew's question from this morning:

"Is this a way of changing the current political conversation from Torture and Cheney?"





If not, it's certainly effective for doing just that. Who will hold the torch of liberty into this horribly dark issue? Will this just fizzle out? I'm afraid it will.

 

[Justin Bailey]

Not sure if you guys caught this earlier, but I just remembered Chris Matthew's question from this morning:

"Is this a way of changing the current political conversation from Torture and Cheney?"





If not, it's certainly effective for doing just that. Who will hold the torch of liberty into this horribly dark issue? Will this just fizzle out? I'm afraid it will.

Who exactly is he accusing here? Obama nominated someone to the SCOTUS, of course the political discussion is now focused on that.