Pat Buchanan suggests: Too many Jews on U.S. Supreme Court bench

[JimR-OCDS]

He has a long history of antisemitic comments and anti-Israeli comments. That's a matter of record.

No, its not a matter of record, but bogus media spin on what he actually said.


Jim

 

[Autumnleaf]

There are a disproportionately high number of Jews on the Supreme Court and in Congress. Don't complain about it or you will be labelled antisemitic. You can complain about other 'white' people and use affirmative action laws against them though. That's okay because they've been keeping minorities down for centuries. That is, except for asians and jews who seem to overcome the white man's oppression.

 

[Texas Lynn]

No, its not a matter of record, but bogus media spin on what he actually said.


Jim

It's not mere remarks that are on the record; for the record I am quite critical of Likud governments in Israel and recognize that to express same is NOT antisemitism in any form.

However, Buchanan's involvement with the bogus hunt for the "Jewish Cabal" in the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Nixon Administration is a matter of public record.

These quotes from Pat are on record:

2005: “Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.”

-- Neo-Conned! Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq, P.142

2004: "Who would benefit from these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America-save oil…Who would benefit from a 'war of civilizations' with Islam? Who other than these neoconservatives and Ariel Sharon? Indeed, Sharon was everywhere the echo of his American auxiliary…."

-- Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, P.52



1999: "After World War II, Jewish influence over foreign policy became almost an obsession with American leaders."

- A Republic, Not an Empire. P. 336.
​

1990: "Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."

- McLaughlin Group, June 15, 1990

​

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It's not mere remarks that are on the record; for the record I am quite critical of Likud governments in Israel and recognize that to express same is NOT antisemitism in any form.

However, Buchanan's involvement with the bogus hunt for the "Jewish Cabal" in the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Nixon Administration is a matter of public record.

These quotes from Pat are on record:

2005: “Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.”

-- Neo-Conned! Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq, P.142​

2004: "Who would benefit from these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America-save oil…Who would benefit from a 'war of civilizations' with Islam? Who other than these neoconservatives and Ariel Sharon? Indeed, Sharon was everywhere the echo of his American auxiliary…."

-- Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, P.52




1999: "After World War II, Jewish influence over foreign policy became almost an obsession with American leaders."

- A Republic, Not an Empire. P. 336.



1990: "Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."

- McLaughlin Group, June 15, 1990


​

​

But these are not anti-semitic statements against Jews, but political statements over the historical and current events concerning the state of Israel and how our foreign policies in the Middle East are influenced by the Jewish political lobby.

You can find similar statements by Norm Finkelstein, a Jew, who has written much on how US policy and sentiments towards Israel are influenced.

To deny the Jewish influence on US foreign policy in the Middle East is to deny reality. To acknowledge its reality is hardly anti-semitic.


Jim

 

[The Lady Kate]

And suppose we do chase a few Jews out of the Supreme Court... what then? Is Buchanan in favor of dropping a couple more men to give the court a more female representation? I think not.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And suppose we do chase a few Jers out of the Supreme Court... what then? Is Buchanan in favor of dropping a couple more men to give the court a more female representation? I think not.

Buchanan isn't calling for a court representative of race or gender, but is critical of those who demanded such diversity when we have republican presidents, but are now silent with Obama as president.

Jim

 

[The Lady Kate]

Buchanan isn't calling for a court representative of race or gender, but is critical of those who demanded such diversity when we have republican presidents, but are now silent with Obama as president.

Jim

And who demanded such diversity in the Supreme Court? Was there an actual outcry, or is Bucanan manufacturing an issue in a vain attempt to appear relevant?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And who demanded such diversity in the Supreme Court? Was there an actual outcry, or is Bucanan manufacturing an issue in a vain attempt to appear relevant?

Go back and read the history of Republican nominees to the court, like Robert Bork.


Diversity has been the mantra of the left for the past 40 years. Its how affirmative action came about in college admissions.

Don't get me wrong. I like diversity and see great value in it. However, in some things you just want the most qualified, rather than the most diverse you can manufacture.

Jim

 

[The Lady Kate]

Go back and read the history of Republican nominees to the court, like Robert Bork.

I really don't feel like doing your homework for you.

Diversity has been the mantra of the left for the past 40 years. Its how affirmative action came about in college admissions.

An interesting generalization, but what does it have to do with the Supreme Court?

Don't get me wrong. I like diversity and see great value in it. However, in some things you just want the most qualified, rather than the most diverse you can manufacture.

Jim

So why is Buchanan pretending to make an issue out of the Supreme Court?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Lady Kate;

I really don't feel like doing your homework for you.

My home work? Hey, I'm not the one lacking the knowledge, but rather, its you. Your the one who needs to do homework.

An interesting generalization, but what does it have to do with the Supreme Court?

The same people calling for diversity in other aspects of society also called for diversity in the supreme court, but are now silent. That's the point Buchanan is making.

So why is Buchanan pretending to make an issue out of the Supreme Court?

Because its not diverse as our society, which those on the left have called for during Republican nominations to the court, but not now.
He's asking them, why are you so quiet about diversity now?

There are no protestants on the court, just Jews and Catholics. Well, after Kagan's confirmation that is.

The country is made up of mostly protestants not Catholics or Jews, yet no protestants are on the court.

In other words, the make up of the court doesn't reflect the diversity the nation as the left has demanded in the past.

Buchanan is in no way saying too many Jews are on the court, as the OP article states.

Buchanan is Catholic and he stated that the court was made up of only Catholics and Jews. I don't see a similar article with headline, Buchanan thinks there are too many Catholics on the court.


Jim

 

[The Lady Kate]

My home work? Hey, I'm not the one lacking the knowledge, but rather, its you. Your the one who needs to do homework.

You claim to have knowledge... put up or shut up.

The same people calling for diversity in other aspects of society also called for diversity in the supreme court, but are now silent. That's the point Buchanan is making.

Again, this is your claim... back it up with something besides vague generalizations.

 

[Texas Lynn]

But these are not anti-semitic statements against Jews, but political statements over the historical and current events concerning the state of Israel and how our foreign policies in the Middle East are influenced by the Jewish political lobby.

You can find similar statements by Norm Finkelstein, a Jew, who has written much on how US policy and sentiments towards Israel are influenced.

To deny the Jewish influence on US foreign policy in the Middle East is to deny reality. To acknowledge its reality is hardly anti-semitic.


Jim

I believe these are attacks on Jews. The Jewish-American community is slurred by such remarks. In advocating for Israel, Jews commit no particular wrong, no more than Turkish-Americans who advocate for Turkey.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Lady Kate;

You claim to have knowledge... put up or shut up.

Christian chartiy mandates that I be patient with you. Its obvious you're too young to remember the calls for diversity over the past decades by those on the left.

However, just doing a google on diversity many links came up, but this one on Senator Jim Webb, whom I admire very much, just recently called for the government to end diversity programs.

Virginia Senator Webb Calls for End to Diversity Programs

FOXNews.com - Virginia Senator Webb Calls for End to Diversity Programs

No if diversity programs were not a reality, why is he calling for and end to it?

Again, this is your claim... back it up with something besides vague generalizations.

No, it was a reality for those of us old enough to have lived through it.

See above.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I believe these are attacks on Jews. The Jewish-American community is slurred by such remarks. In advocating for Israel, Jews commit no particular wrong, no more than Turkish-Americans who advocate for Turkey.

Why don't you read the column actually written by Pat Buchanan, and see if he's attacking Jews in anyway, or saying there are too many on the court, as the article in the OP suggests?


Townhall - Pat Buchanan - Are Liberals Anti-WASP?


Jim

 

[The Lady Kate]

The Lady Kate;



Christian chartiy mandates that I be patient with you. Its obvious you're too young to remember the calls for diversity over the past decades by those on the left.

Honesty is also mandated... but not anticipated.

However, just doing a google on diversity many links came up, but this one on Senator Jim Webb, whom I admire very much, just recently called for the government to end diversity programs.

Virginia Senator Webb Calls for End to Diversity Programs

And this has what to do with the Left?

No if diversity programs were not a reality, why is he calling for and end to it?

Still not seeing a connection to "The Left"... seeing even less of what Buchanan's going on about.

Now, I'm willing to be honest here and say that while liberals have worked to rectify social inequalities (look at the Civil Rights Act, for example), Buchanan is, at best, knocking down a strawman.

How about you?

No, it was a reality for those of us old enough to have lived through it.

I've lived through vague generalizations as well... and even if I hadn't, Well, that's what we have you for, it seems.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Lady Kate

Honesty is also mandated... but not anticipated.

Are you trying to say I'm not being honest here?

And this has what to do with the Left?

Diversity was the mantra of the left, especially when it came to affirmative action in admissions to universities and colleges and to
the US Supreme Court.

Still not seeing a connection to "The Left"... seeing even less of what Buchanan's going on about.

Maybe former president Bill Clinton's words in the speech he gave at Georgetown U, back in 2001 will help you?

"No, the most important thing about the modern world is the growth of democracy and diversity, because that is the environment within which all the economic growth, all the technological growth, and all the scientific advances flourish best. I was honored to be president at the first time in history when more than half the world's people lived under governments of their own choosing, and when America, as witnessed by your presence here today, and other advanced countries became far more diverse racially, ethnically, and religiously than ever before, and the societies were actually working, and working better, and I might add, a lot more interesting because of our diversity.
President Clinton's Georgetown speech

Here's more on Clinton's position on diversity.
http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/clinton.html

Next you'll try to tell me that Bill Clinton isn't on the left, politically?

Also, it was president Bill Clinton, who said that if he were elected president, the US Supreme Court would look like the America, in other words, diverse.

Now, I'm willing to be honest here and say that while liberals have worked to rectify social inequalities (look at the Civil Rights Act, for example), Buchanan is, at best, knocking down a strawman.

What Buchanan is doing is addressing the silence over a court which is not diverse in accord to American society.

Note, Buchanan is Catholic and he points out that Catholics make up the court as well as Jews, but no WASP. He asks those on the left who have called for diversity on the SCOTUS in the past, why are they silent now?

As I said before, I think diversity is a good thing, but that isn't the point of the thread. Its the bogus claim that Buchanan said there are too many Jews on the court. He never said that, nor was he even opposing the make up of the court. Instead, he was addressing the hypocrisy of those on the left.

Jim

 

[The Lady Kate]

Diversity was the mantra of the left, especially when it came to affirmative action in admissions to universities and colleges and to
the US Supreme Court.

Vague generalizations seem to be your mantra... you chant them so well.

Maybe former president Bill Clinton's words in the speech he gave at Georgetown U, back in 2001 will help you?

Next you'll try to tell me that Bill Clinton isn't on the left, politically?

Finally you said something specific and relevant!

Clinton claimed that democracy and diversity were important "because that is the environment within which all the economic growth, all the technological growth, and all the scientific advances flourish best."

Was he wrong? And right or wrong, where is the claim (that Buchanan/you seem to be fighting against) that diversity was more important than competence?

Also, it was president Bill Clinton, who said that if he were elected president, the US Supreme Court would look like the America, in other words, diverse.

What Buchanan is doing is addressing the silence over a court which is not diverse in accord to American society.

I'm sure there's a percentage of American society who are dumber than a bag of rocks... Shall we hear Buchanan/you complain about the lack of idiotic representation (the occasional outrageous decision notwithstanding) on the Supreme court?

Note, Buchanan is Catholic and he points out that Catholics make up the court as well as Jews, but no WASP. He asks those on the left who have called for diversity on the SCOTUS in the past, why are they silent now?

Is that what he's asking?

As I said before, I think diversity is a good thing, but that isn't the point of the thread. Its the bogus claim that Buchanan said there are too many Jews on the court. He never said that, nor was he even opposing the make up of the court. Instead, he was addressing the hypocrisy of those on the left.

So, he was opposing hypocrisy without actually saying anything? Interesting...

 

[Texas Lynn]

Why don't you read the column actually written by Pat Buchanan, and see if he's attacking Jews in anyway, or saying there are too many on the court, as the article in the OP suggests?


Townhall - Pat Buchanan - Are Liberals Anti-WASP?


Jim

I read it. The concept is reprehensible. The idea that there could somehow be too many Jews on the Supreme Court is antisemitism at face value.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Next you'll try to tell me that Bill Clinton isn't on the left, politically?

Try? President Clinton was as President a conservative Democrat and quite to the right of Presidents Nixon and Ford. He was the titular head of the Democratic Leadership Council, the organization of conservatives within the Democratic Party. Like President Kennedy he was called "liberal" but seldom exhibited any evidence of being such. He was just slighly less likely to have once shook the hands of abortion clinic bombers in contrast to his opponents in 1992 and 1996.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I read it. The concept is reprehensible. The idea that there could somehow be too many Jews on the Supreme Court is antisemitism at face value.

And Buchanan is neither credible nor clever enough to successfully pass it off as a "I was just making an absurd statement to prove a point!" point.