Change Latina to White in Sotomayor Speech

[fated]

Change Latina to White in Sotomayor Speech FOX Forum FOXNews.com

 

[fated]

It still isn't precisely racist, obviously, because of all the compelling experience one might have, and obviously, bring to the table.

That said, white pride, unlike Latina or black pride, is generally frowned upon in our society.

 

[fated]

It would just be so much easier if she'd say that the comment deals with understanding things... The tilt of it can sound so dangerous... and that's why I say 'isn't precisely,' until... -my- current ruling stands. I'm not going to assume she's racist, but am certainly suspicious of this comment repeated but never clearly explained.

 

[interpreter]

I have a Mexican wife, but I hope and pray Sotomayor is voted down.

 

[Sphere]

hoping and praying wasn't enough to stop McCain and Palin from getting STEAMROLLED in the election

 

[MichaelFJF]

52-48 is a steamroll?

 

[Sphere]

365-173 and 69,000,000-59,000,000 is a steamroll, yes.

The point is that Sotomayor is going to become a Supreme Court Justice and there is nothing the radicalized far-right can do about it.

 

[MichaelFJF]

52-48.

 

[essential]

There are many examples of this double standard.

For example, take the movie "White Men Can't Jump." Imagine if there was a movie entitled "Black Men Can't ________"

 

[Maren]

52-48 is a steamroll?

That's what I've kept hearing from Prop. 8 supporters.

 

[shinbits]

hoping and praying wasn't enough to stop McCain and Palin from getting STEAMROLLED in the election

Hoping and praying was enough to get Obama---a Christian---elected.

Later.

 

[Sphere]

Hence God is a Democrat.

 

[jaymai]

What if a white kid claimed he could play basketball better than any black player in the NBA? Would that be racist?

Or if a white lady said she could cook sesame chicken better than any Chinese person?

How about if a white guy said he could pick peaches faster than any Mexican? Would that be racist?

Okay, lets switch it around. If a Chinese cook said he could cook sesame chicken better than a white woman, would that be racist, or just plain scratch-your-head-silly?

My point is, there's a perception, whether we want to admit it or not, that black guys make the best basketball players, Chinese cooks make the best sesame chicken, Mexicans are good at picking peaches and that white men make the best leaders and decision makers. So to do these things better (or claim you do them better) than some race, gender or culture that is perceived to be the best at said skill, isn't racist, especially if that perception is widely held. The white kid dosen't want someone to dismiss his basketball skills without seeing him play simply because he's white. The white lady doesn't want her sesame chicken to be put down simply because she looks like Paula Deen. And the white guy looking for a job picking peaches doesn't want to be kicked off the truck because he's white. And yes, Ms. Sotomayor doesn't want someone to look at her and assume because she belongs to a culture, gender and background that isn't known for growing Supreme Court Justices, that she's not capable of making wise decisions. Now if you claim that a lot of people still don't hold certain perceptions about certain races, I say you're lying. Yes, some black folks (I'm black) have these same perceptions. Of course no one wants to admit it, but that's just the way things are. For example, I've heard many blacks make statements like President Obama speaks as well as a white man. Is that racist? If you turn it around and say a white man speaks as articulately as a black man, would that be racist, or just scratch-your-head-silly?

So when Ms. Sotomayor says she would hope a wise Latino woman could make better decisions than a white male, I understood where she was coming from. If you switch it around, and say a white male can make better decisions than a Latino woman, or any woman for that matter, some folks wouldn't find that racist, just downright silly because in some people's minds, it would be stating the obvious.

 

[feral]

I think one of the main reasons something like "white pride" has been frowned on is because, in addition to its usage in things like the KKK and Hitler's notion of Aryan goodness, there is no "white" anything. There is no commonality between those lumped together as "white". What have the French got in common with the Irish? How are Italy and England united by language? What does Hungary have to do with Wales?

The thing the term "black" is equally ridiculous, because there is no joint black culture, but I can understand why it's used. When a minority wants to achieve progress of some sort, it will be a lot more likely to succeed if there is some unity, which is why "black" efforts are more successful than something like Kenyan freedoms, Congolese pride or the Association for the Advancement of Angolan People would be. Furthermore, there are some similarities to the African-American experience, at least a common historical experience of oppression, but in "white" experience, it's all been different. The experience of the Brits was very different from the experience of Italians or Irish people. If instead of the word "white", a speech discussed a person's pride as a Frenchman or Brit, or talked about their Polish or Romanian upbringing, I would have absolutely no problem with that. But "white" people don't even exist, so trying to lump the majority together like that is just pointless.

 

[tulc]

Change Latina to White in Sotomayor Speech FOX Forum FOXNews.com

uhmmmm the points she's making are the same whether you use Latina or white.
I think this one makes less sense, but is funnier:

I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my PANTS identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.
Who am I? I am a “Newyork-PANTS .” For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of PANTS -born parents who came to the states during World War II…
The story of that success is what made me and what makes me the PANTS person that I am. The PANTS side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family through our shared experiences and traditions…
My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a PANTS soul. They taught me to love being a PANTS person and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for PANTS , and although that struggle did not and does not create a PANTS identity, it does inspire how I live my life…
As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only two were… two PANTS women. Of the 641 district court judges only … eleven PANTS women. PANTS -American women comprise only 1% of the judiciary… And no PANTS , male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.
Sort of shocking, isn’t it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were PANTS men or women… These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need for PANTS organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting PANTS women and men in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system…
The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more PANTS on the bench…
Yet, we do have PANTS in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law…
Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably against PANTS women on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or PANTS are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based…
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 PANTS people 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 PANTS 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…
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 PANTS women 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 PANTS , in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance, but enough PANTS in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging…
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 PANTS woman 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 NON-PANTS 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 PANTS and women…
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 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 PANTS woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a NON-PANTS male who hasn’t lived that life…
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…
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of PANTS women and PANTS people on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my PANTS heritage…
I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate…

tulc(sorry, couldn't help myself)

 

[essential]

Hence God is a Democrat.

Wait a minute. What does that make Satan?

 

[Sphere]

Good prevails, Evil loses.

Who prevailed / lost in the 2008 election?

HMMM...

 

[tulc]

Wait a minute. What does that make Satan?

...a whig?
tulc(those guys...)

 

[Billnew]

I have a Mexican wife, but I hope and pray Sotomayor is voted down.

Won't happen.
She made one stupid coment, that is racist and sexist, meant too? Don't know. But doesn't matter. She will be supported.

...a whig?
tulc(those guys...)

Satan wears a whig?(is that spelled right?)

 

[Maren]

Won't happen.
She made one stupid coment, that is racist and sexist, meant too? Don't know. But doesn't matter. She will be supported.


Satan wears a whig?(is that spelled right?)

Hmm... I have problem imagining Daniel Webster or Henry Clay being worn by Satan (famous whigs). Especially since Daniel Webster is supposed to have defeated the devil.

Maren (who thinks you probably meant wig)