BruSays—Agree. These conversations are useless, as is the coverage we’re getting of the non-grilling.

Again, we are engaged in more or less useless conversations. This woman will be confirmed. She is no more biased, no less an “idiot,” and certainly the equal to any one who now wears a Supreme Court robe.

The bigger stories are:
The Republicans using this confirmation hearing as a platform to make themselves appear as the guardians of equality and fairness.

The fact that the Corporate Media is happy to hype this nonsensical “grilling” to pump their ratings and advertiser dollars.

stcfarms:
‘As a half French, half Ojibwe Indian fireman I can tell you that Sotomayor is an idiot. Fireman tests are not about race, they are about your ability to solve complex problems in an instant. ...’

But they did give a written test, did they not?  Once any specific test is given, it has to be ancestry-neutral.

Actually, it may well be that some ancestral groups are better than others at being firefighters.  But I don’t think that has been established scientifically, and in any case, even if it were, if firefighter jobs were considered a public good, they would have to be distributed in an ancestry-neutral manner, because we place a very high value on equal rights, even higher, perhaps, than on efficient firefighting.  Or at least our Constitution does—see the 14th Amendment.

Actually I think this particular case suggests that Sotomayor prefers abstractions like stare decisis to the practical effects of decisions, the opposite of what her opponents seem to be accusing her of.

By Sepharad, July 15 at 9:59 pm #

stcfarms—I don’t think Sotomayor is an idiot, and I think that she would probably agree with the truth underlying your comment, as I do. Reverse discrimination is as bad as discrimination, maybe worse.
Report this

By BruSays, July 15 at 6:16 pm #

Yet here we are calling a Supreme Court candidate an idiot because someone thinks she prefers written tests for firemen over quick-thinking decisions?

Sepharad,

  Thank you. Most people do not realize that firemen must know all of the hazardous materials and how to deal with them properly. We must understand accelerants and how to extinguish them. It is a very complicated job and your first mistake is likely to be your last mistake.

BruSays,

My problem with Sotomayor is that she did not investigate the job that she intended to give to unqualified people. She made a judgement that could have cost lives based on race. Do you REALLY want the people that flunked the test to show up at your fire? I am sure that if you request it your local fire department would be more than happy to oblige (just show them your emails).

stcfarms—I don’t think Sotomayor is an idiot, and I think that she would probably agree with the truth underlying your comment, as I do. Reverse discrimination is as bad as discrimination, maybe worse.

The woman is absolutely qualified for the job - certainly on par with Alito or Roberts.

Yet here we are calling a Supreme Court candidate an idiot because someone thinks she prefers written tests for firemen over quick-thinking decisions? Here we are quibbling over out-of-context sentences written years ago and extrapolating their meaning through use of fabricated, off-the-wall questions as if to predict her interpretations of future rulings on abortion, the 2nd Ammendment, and racial equality.

What the hell is this all about? 

It’s about hyping up “biting” questions and pushing the “tough” cross-examinations. Our Corporate Media is feeding it all to armchair “Supreme Court Justice experts” who think this woman is getting a good griling of fair and relevant questions. It makes for good TV, doesn’t it?

But is sucks as far as a meaningful hearing is concerned. It’s about desperate Republicans attempting to divert your attention from their own miserable record on human rights and the Constitution by pointing their fingers at Sotomayor and conjuring up fake “issues” and manufactured “biases” that just don’t exist.

It turns out that the Second Amendment is not among these rulings. Only the Supreme Court has the authority to make that ruling. Judge Sotomayor is absolutely correct that states still have the right to regulate the ownership of guns until such times that the Supreme Court rules that the states are bound by the Second Amendment. She is clearly not the only judge who holds this view.

Yes I am aware that the Supreme court has been rather careful of the 2A. But I do not trust government that condones torture and has the ability to alienate the citizen from the Constitution by calling him an “enemy combatant”. Our saviour in the Whitehouse has not recanted the executive orders and the prcedures of our previous dictator in the Whitehouse. I view this current nominee with the highest suspicion as she would be sympathetic to disarming our citizens/enemy combatants. There will come a time when citizens will not know if federal agents will arrest them under martial law or under constitutional law. Martial law provides no habeas corpus or timeline for ending a sentence under conviction. Our latest boy wonder will not release convicts who have finished serving time under the Patriot Law provisions for terrorism for reasons of national security. So if the 2A is abridged, I would say get ready for trouble.

Joe and Paracelsus.

Judging from your comments I deduce that you venerate our constitution. If that is the case I hope that you will study once again what its original intent was and how that has changed over the years.

The original intent of the so-called “Bill of Rights” was to protect states and individuals (except slaves) against specific arbitrary decisions and actions of all branches of the Federal Government. Even today the First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no….”. It says nothing about what the states can or cannot do about “religion” and “free speech”. The Supreme Court has over the years ruled that specific Amendments (with one m, Joe!) are also binding on states. It turns out that the Second Amendment is not among these rulings. Only the Supreme Court has the authority to make that ruling. Judge Sotomayor is absolutely correct that states still have the right to regulate the ownership of guns until such times that the Supreme Court rules that the states are bound by the Second Amendment. She is clearly not the only judge who holds this view.

It is my personal opinion (as distinct from a firm interpretation of the Second Amendment which I am not authorized to do)that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to assure the worried and hesitant States that the Federal Government would never abolish State Militias and replace these with a National Army. Without that assurance several states would not have entered the United States; in fact there would not have been a United States of America. Where the framers used “the people” they never meant “individuals” but “we the people”. My own admittedly biased reading of the original intent of the Second Amendment is that neither of you have a State Constitutional right to “bear arms” and that the recent ruling of the Supreme Court was an erroneous interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I do not know why the Supreme Court never ruled that the Second Amendment is binding on States too. My hunch is that several, perhaps a majority of the Justices of the Court always knew well what the framers had in mind. They knew that Washington, Monroe, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams et al. did not want to see arms in the hands of what they occasionally called “rabble”. “We the people” was the elite,  the well-educated, the property owners of the time. Yes, they wanted the “rabble” to fight and die against the Brits but ultimately only in “well regulated militias”. God forbid that they would turn their arms against the elite!

As a half French, half Ojibwe Indian fireman I can tell you that Sotomayor is an idiot. Fireman tests are not about race, they are about your ability to solve complex problems in an instant. A fireman has to make dozens of life or death decisions at every fire, one mistake means one or more dead firemen and perhaps a dead homeowner or two. I guess the best way for this wise latina to understand is to have only those firemen that flunked the test show up when she is trapped in a burning building. I do not care about the race, gender or sexual preference of my fellow firefighters as long as they know their job.

“Would” was the Conditional, thus operative Word.
Sotomayor stated ‘she WOULD hope a wise Latina WOULD…’. Thus admitting that there is the possiblity that the Latina would not. Additonally she placed a disclaimer in there regarding wisedom- differentiating between Latina’s - the Wise and the not so wise.
Heres what a Racist statement would have sounded like ‘A Latina would make better decisions than a White male’
Reading is fundemental, but is useless if you are unable to comprehend the context and the nuances of construct.
Repugs are not only unabashedly revealing their Racism & Sexism, but also their complete ignorance ragarding the English language. Is English their second language because it appears they do not understand the subtleties.
“Would” (Websters)ancillary verb. Used to express a 1)CONDITION,2)The Future,3) a Polite Request,4) A WISH, 5)DOUBT
Seems Ms.Sotomayor learned the art of the english language far better than the majority of White male Repugs.Did Sessions and Grahman get their law degrees from a cracker Jack Box?

White male privilege doesn’t exist for poor white males. They have to compete with other minority groups for jobs laying brick, framing houses, and roofing. Their children compete with Latino immigrants for restaurant jobs, but they frequently are turned away because they aren’t bilingual in Spanish and English. White folks aren’t likely to be hired in black majority or Latino majority city governments. If anything Sotomayar has worsened race relations with her decision on the white firemen who were eligible by a civil service exam, but had to be held back until they could black men who could pass the tests. That decision of hers would have left positions vacant for many years instead of promoting by merit. White male privilege is the reserve of the elites, not of the poor working whites. I see a time when disenfranchised white men will need advocacy groups just as badly as any other minority group.

Even though everyone talks about the supposed impartiality of judges, every experienced litigator knows that the background and experience of the judge is often a major factor in the outcome of litigation.  To pretend otherwise is a form of fraudulent conduct on the part of those Senators who have experience trying cases.

This whole bad white guy good Latina woman theme is beginning to sound like a soap series, though parts of it are entertainment worthy. I’m not saying the essential American story is not worth telling—rise from humble background to great things, especially with skin color and gender variations—mainly because there are many places in the world in which even that basic story does not exist, would be unthinkable.

The story I’m waiting for is the one in which our country finds the messiah politician who will enable our country to change its economic and educational orientation to eradicate poverty, ignorance and greed, then move quickly to innovate our environment and species away from the brink of disaster. Now THAT would be a national story worth telling. Especially if the only element is American—- zero emphassis on gender, race, religion, class, culture, family.

Republicans: Listen very carefully. YOU LOST! 

It was no secret that a huge concern over the 2008 election was which party was going to be able to usher in the next one or two Supreme Court justices. It was no secret that a Republcan admininstration will lean right; a Democratic administration would lean left in their choice.

OK, we won and most likely our candidate leans left…much in the way that Scalia, appointed by a Republican admninistration for instance, leans right.

We all know that the “baggage of life experience” a Supreme Court justice brings to the job should be unbiased. But we also know that’s simply impossible to guarantee or assess. Even if they “check” that baggage they’re allowed “carryon.” And so be it.

Again, Republicans. You lost.

The extremely patronizing Lindsey Graham lives in some weird 1950s universe. The voices of women in the Middle East should be heard because we don’t hear from “the mothers”? Women as mere adjunct to men, then, because they give birth to them.  No childless Middle East women need speak. Bringing up the hoary cliche about women being asked if they can type, as if to demonstrate that he “gets” that was wrong. Jeeze! And why doesn’t he comprehend that if a “Caucasian male” said he’d make a better decision that a woman or a minority, he’d be coming from a place or arrogance and entrenched power, as opposed thevery possibly enlightening & broadening POV of having experienced discrimination? He’d deserve to have his head handed to him (he deserves that, anyway); Sotomayor does not.

And yet white males don’t want to recognize “white privilege”?  Puhlease!  This nation is not just homogeneous and white, with shades of black, brown, and beige filling the edges.  These white men of privilege need to get over themselves and recognize that they are not the world!  Ms Sotomayor has more qualifications than quite a few of the justices that are currently on the Supreme Court!  And because she is a person of color she understands the real world experience of these laws as they work, usually against the marginalized in this society!

Personally, I’m really tired of hearing these white men that don’t get their way - whine about the injustice and “reverse discrimination” they are suffering at the hands of women, ethnic minorities, GLT folk that have been abused for centuries by laws that white men of privilege have made for everyone else in society to follow except themselves!

I don’t think racism against white people is any better than racism against other groups of people. Also I don’t approve of someone who would break the 2nd Amendment. Satomayor exists to cause faction and division.

There is lots of talk these days about the Republican party either dying out altogether or, at best, being reduced to the de facto party of the Confederacy.  The night sweats, the bigotry, the hatred, the narrow mindedness, the ranting, whooping and hollering, the brass knuckles in the face that are the signatures of the Republican party are, in fact, their strong points in a nation currently swirling in a clockwise direction and rushing headlong toward the little hole at the bottom of the toilet bowl.  The worse things become, the more likely it is they will come back and come back strongly. Obama’s kabuki Republican act will wear out very quickly and Americans will want the real thing once again.

Precisely right - white male has always been seen as the norm, with other races and women seen as exceptions to that norm. I remember definitions and images used to be standard: cop - white male. Doctor - white male. Judge - white male. Accountant - white male. But “woman doctor,” “woman cop,” “woman judge,” etc.

It’s good to see change happening, even though these Others (non-white, non-male) have to work in and under paradigms established by white males. I’ve often wondered what the world would be like had men and women worked in tandem, and all races worked together in cooperation, rather than being led and dominated by one sex, one race.

hello. i think it is nice to have ethnic racial representation, in addition to a member of femalia. i am still awaiting the social contributions equalling those of ..., white men. this is the society envisioned, and labored so hard to create; by white men: in a civilized society that can now permit variations. the weight is heavily upon their shoulders to exemplify progress, and not the dismantling of what lives before them: have died to create and preserve. the issue becomes the consequences of their example as a token, moreso than their membership espousing a group opinion.

Thanks Mr. Robinson for the reality check; reading or listening to republicans these days is, well, highly confusing. Their claims make no sense, their ideas are empty, their rhetoric really nasty. They’re crazy people living inside a bubble. Phew! Inside the brain of the likes of Jeff Sessions lurks a dark, evil and violent mentality better left to the distant past.

If she is going to be yet another politician who works for the government and not for the people, why should it matter just because she’s Hispanic? Haven’t we learned our Obama lesson yet?