tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post7832373133496717733..comments2024-03-18T19:14:18.804-04:00Comments on Daniel Greenfield / Sultan Knish Articles at DanielGreenfield.org : Sotomayor, Obama and the Legitimization of RacismDaniel Greenfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-17337246073459844172009-07-18T18:38:36.710-04:002009-07-18T18:38:36.710-04:00Lemon's first comment about turning American i...Lemon's first comment about turning American into a conglomerate of tribes is important. That is the divide and conquer method of evil people.<br /><br />If you are interested in what a tribal society looks like, look no further than the Middle East.<br /><br />Nice eh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-8059722873247117422009-06-06T23:59:38.372-04:002009-06-06T23:59:38.372-04:00Sam Alito is Italian and that is what makes him to...Sam Alito is Italian and that is what makes him totally acceptable for the supreme court. <br />Wake up and smell the canoli.<br /><br /> You non-Italians are all alike.<br />You all look alike too if you ask me.L. DePalmanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-74349549167255511102009-06-05T15:47:36.310-04:002009-06-05T15:47:36.310-04:00So your argument is that Sotomayor is an exception...So your argument is that Sotomayor is an exceptional candidate for the court because her reversal rate is only slightly lower than average?<br /><br />Not that reversal rates matter very much, but it seems convenient that instead of answering anything else, you jumped at the chance to trot out all the latest pro-Sotomayor reversal rates talking points.Daniel Greenfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-45705289708089750922009-06-05T14:05:55.562-04:002009-06-05T14:05:55.562-04:004. Oh, yeah, I forgot, Sam Alito's reversal ra...4. Oh, yeah, I forgot, Sam Alito's reversal rate: 100%. Do you think they should kick him off the court?Kevin Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08238649458932164077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-30898914164998483882009-06-05T14:03:22.285-04:002009-06-05T14:03:22.285-04:001. Only 5 of the hundreds of Sotomayor decisions h...1. Only 5 of the hundreds of Sotomayor decisions have been ruled on by the Supreme Court, bringing into question the statistical significance of her reversal rate (mathematically speaking, you can't argue that the 60% rate would hold if the court reviewed all her rulings). One must also wonder if the number of rulings are so low because her other decisions were so good the SCOTUS decided not to even review the case (they only choose to hear about 1% of the cases appealed to them each year).<br />2. 60% is actually a good rate. It's lower than the average. The Supreme Court reverses 75% of the circuit court cases it chooses to hear (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/washington-times-supremes-uphold.html).<br /><br />If you want to cite statistics, than be prepared to deal with the reality of what they mean. The stat you brought up actually shows how good of a judge Sotomayor is, except...<br /><br />3. You already said that the Supreme Court gets is wrong sometimes, so why are you putting faith in their reversal rate? Possibly, all 5 decisions should have been overturned, or maybe they all should have been upheld.Kevin Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08238649458932164077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-79810860189281163792009-06-05T12:08:34.139-04:002009-06-05T12:08:34.139-04:00Well said Sultan. I think it says it all, actually...Well said Sultan. I think it says it all, actually. <br /><br />Her rulings are often reversed on appeal. That says a great deal about her ability as a judge. A pretty clear indicator that she doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.Keli Atahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05089132216830000713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-59925887364825140792009-06-04T23:01:15.630-04:002009-06-04T23:01:15.630-04:00The coverage and the promos have repeatedly emphas...The coverage and the promos have repeatedly emphasized her race, rather than her mixed bag of qualifications, which include a rather high rate of reversals and slapdash opinions. <br /><br />But my point was that she clearly believes her race and gender make her qualified, she's made similar statements repeatedly over the years.<br /><br />Whether a judge comes from a middle class home or a housing project, whether he's black or white, male or female, tells you nothing about his fitness. It's only a PC society that would emphasize identity over qualification.Daniel Greenfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-90303186720532617822009-06-04T22:56:01.590-04:002009-06-04T22:56:01.590-04:00Thank you SusannaThank you SusannaDaniel Greenfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-61003468493223459072009-06-04T22:42:19.375-04:002009-06-04T22:42:19.375-04:00Lemon is not wrong.
80% or more of the US is white...Lemon is not wrong.<br />80% or more of the US is white.The number rises with the addition of Hispanics that are actually white spanish and not of mixed background. Those numbers are pretty substantial acutally.<br /><br />The latest statistic is that 86% of Americans are Christian.Marc deAngelesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-2202413198533769012009-06-04T22:31:03.323-04:002009-06-04T22:31:03.323-04:00What a brilliant article - as usual, and always sp...What a brilliant article - as usual, and always spot on!<br />Thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-85145654797475286872009-06-04T22:04:11.448-04:002009-06-04T22:04:11.448-04:00Lemon, that's not even an accurate statistic.
...Lemon, that's not even an accurate statistic.<br /><br />Sulatan Knish, are you arguing that the most the woman who has more federal court experience than any nominee in the last 100 years, who was second in her class at Princeton, and editor of the Yale law journal was nominated because of her race?<br /><br />And, I'll say again, I don't think that we should have slots reserved for minority groups as a representative system. I do think that it is a benefit to the court to have diversity, be it ethnic, socioeconomic, geographical, or otherwise. I guess most people on this board would have no problem if all nine justices were 75 year old white conservative men who grew up in upper-middle class homes where the were the second of three children in stable nuclear families in the same small town in Montana, attended the same high school, played the same sports, all went to Yale, all worked at the same law firm, all became judges on the circuit court of appeals in the same year, and all joined the Supreme Court at the same time. Personally, I don't feel that this would be good for the court. Like it or not you LEARN from your experiences, and I refuse to accept the notion that knowledge is bad.Kevin Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08238649458932164077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-9249754678328630852009-06-04T16:54:18.215-04:002009-06-04T16:54:18.215-04:00No, neither should we have people becoming judges ...No, neither should we have people becoming judges because of their raceDaniel Greenfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-25349149205231421842009-06-04T14:50:20.328-04:002009-06-04T14:50:20.328-04:00I don't think the Supreme Court is about repre...I don't think the Supreme Court is about representation of factions within the nation.<br /><br />However if we want accurate representation on the court, then it must be made up of primarily white , anglo saxon-German, Protestants since that is over 86% of the US population.<br /><br />In that case other groups are very much over represented no?<br /><br />So can we get over this diversity junk?Chana @ Lemon Lime Moonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11656854855385193867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-18179019980831434932009-06-04T11:34:45.020-04:002009-06-04T11:34:45.020-04:00My mistake. So we should only have raceless people...My mistake. So we should only have raceless people on the court. So all the white people have to go, too.Kevin Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08238649458932164077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-1656588548809736242009-06-04T11:23:03.603-04:002009-06-04T11:23:03.603-04:00to Kevin
You say:"So we don't need any ra...to Kevin<br />You say:"So we don't need any races represented on the court? Except for white, right?"<br /><br />Where you see someone say except white?Topanga Canyonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-12412244001865644032009-06-03T23:35:46.789-04:002009-06-03T23:35:46.789-04:00Kevin,
The problem is that Sotomayor is not setti...Kevin,<br /><br />The problem is that Sotomayor is not setting aside her bias, but emphasizing it as her qualification for office.<br /><br />All human beings are biased, but some do a better job of transcending it than others.<br /><br />1. La Raza is the mainstream face of secondary hate groups such as MECHA, much as David Duke's White Nationalist Party. <br /><br />2. If that was all, Sotomayor wouldn't have reacted the way she did on the video.<br /><br />3. She did indeed say that, and the secondary quote linked above demonstrates it.Daniel Greenfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-70961337653801756562009-06-03T23:19:22.896-04:002009-06-03T23:19:22.896-04:00Whites have unique experiences that other races do...Whites have unique experiences that other races don't have as well.<br />There are also many good things about some white only groups too.They are not necessarily racist either. Thinking that they are is racist in itself.<br /><br />I would think that I, as a white woman could be able to use the richness of my experience to render better decisions than a Latina woman.Liana Davidsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-63115612605256980382009-06-03T21:50:07.773-04:002009-06-03T21:50:07.773-04:00Keli Ata, it's not that I'm ignoring the b...Keli Ata, it's not that I'm ignoring the bias issue. It's just that I believe every judge is biased. When a judge here's a case, her or she has to be aware of what their preconceived notions are and work not to let that keep them from rendering a fair judgement. Sotomayor has acknowledged this.<br /><br />Look at the abortion issue. Do you believe that none of the judges on the bench have an opinion on abortion? So if an abortion case were to come before the court, they would be biased to their existing positions. However, they would work to not let this bias blind them to the facts of the case.<br /><br />Sultan Knish,<br />1. Show me specific instances that prove a pattern of intolerance on the part of La Raza. (I'm not even going to ask you to respond to the racial pride thing because I'm sick and tired of being told not to be proud of who I am or where I come from).<br /><br />2. I think we just define policy-making differently. I think when Sotomayor refered to policy making she had in mind the things that both you and I have acknowledged as the role of appeals courts - interpreting and applying the law. I see that as policy, you don't.<br /><br />On the Warren court: do you agree with the Brown decision? If so, do you see how some could see that as both a correct decision and an instance of making or at least influencing policy?<br /><br />3. She didn't say that by virtue of her race she's a better judge. She said that she <b>hoped</b> that she could use her experiences to make her a better judge than she would be devoid of those experiences. (But, again, you're not really into looking at her actual words)Kevin Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08238649458932164077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-61302374246361345042009-06-03T21:39:58.953-04:002009-06-03T21:39:58.953-04:001. KKK, La Raza, etc. Nationalist racial groups de...1. KKK, La Raza, etc. Nationalist racial groups dedicated to racial pride and promoting intolerance toward people of other races.<br /><br />If the shoe fits...<br /><br />2. Policy making means originating laws. The judiciary is not meant to originate laws. Striking down laws that violate pre-existing laws, particularly the Constitution is not making policy, if done correctly. <br /><br />The Warren Court was habitually guilty of judicial activism, and inventing and originating laws. The Warren Court embodied judicial activism. Courts are not supposed to invent laws, that's why we have a legislative and executive branch, at the state and federal levels.<br /><br />3. It doesn't. Anymore than Sotomayor is a better judge because she's a hispanic woman.Daniel Greenfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-29407038980020149782009-06-03T18:59:24.197-04:002009-06-03T18:59:24.197-04:00Kevin, you seem to ignore the whole bias issue whe...Kevin, you seem to ignore the whole bias issue when it comes to courts. Any bias is wrong. Courts by their very nature must be objective--judges who cannot be objective or have a conflict of interests typically recuse themselves.<br /><br />If that's true in the lower courts it should also apply to the Supreme Court and a nominee who has made racist comments and belongs to a supremacy organization.<br /><br />This is the Supreme Court, not a lower court in which a judge can show discretion in sentencing after a conviction. The Supreme court isn't a trial court.<br /><br />Two trials worth noting--Simi Valley and the O.J. Simpson trial. Very terrible and unjustice outcomes based on biases and people looking after their "own kind" so to speak based on race.<br /><br />The US Constitution is too vital to this country to let it fall victim to the whims and biases of a particular judge.<br /><br />Drastic alternation in the Constitution can lead to a blood coup. A political coup.Keli Atahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05089132216830000713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-88401688491816222752009-06-03T18:05:14.654-04:002009-06-03T18:05:14.654-04:001. So now La Raza is the KKK? And Alberto Gonzales...1. So now La Raza is the KKK? And Alberto Gonzales is racist?<br /><br />2. Striking down laws because they are incompatible with other laws is policy making. That is also not the only job of the court. They are to interpret laws and the Constitution. That's policy making. Again, look at the example of Brown. That decision declared a specific policy unconstitutional, and then (and most people don't know this) there was a whole second Brown case in which the courts had to FORCE schools to change their policy because they didn't abide by the first decision. I don't know, maybe you think the court got it wrong in Brown, but either way, I see that as setting policy. Anything that a court does sets policy for courts beneath them. Lower courts have to abide by the rulings of the superior court, that's just the way it works.<br /><br />3. Being white makes you a better judge than what? And why?Kevin Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08238649458932164077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-51231958585933255512009-06-03T17:48:46.266-04:002009-06-03T17:48:46.266-04:001. La Raza conventionally is used to describe race...1. La Raza conventionally is used to describe race. If you like the same defense can be used for the KKK. Every racist group makes sure to focus on positive values too.<br /><br />2. Policy making decisions are made by legislatures. Judges should only be striking laws down based on their incompatibility with existing laws. Judicial activism on the other hand makes policy by artificially creating its own laws, and trying to hang them on something loosely for support. In the 20th century the Supreme Court has swung toward judicial activism, and if it keeps going we'll wind up with a European style unlimited powers judiciary.<br /><br />3. How about, being white makes me more qualified to be a judge. <br /><br />http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/03/oh-my-sotomayor-made-nearly-identical-wise-latina-comment-in-1994-too/Daniel Greenfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-27657877553740514692009-06-03T17:04:59.921-04:002009-06-03T17:04:59.921-04:001. There are many ways to translate "La Raza&...1. There are many ways to translate "La Raza" other than "the Race," and their core principles do not represent racism.<br /><br />2. Interpreting the law is inherently a policy making decision. Are you saying that striking down quota systems doesn't effect policy? Are you saying that <i>Brown</i> outlawing racial segregation didn't make policy? Are you saying that declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional doesn't make policy? Any time you apply the law you make policy, because you determine how the law will be applied for your court and every court within you jurisdiction. That's not radical, it's basic civics.<br /><br />3. Mentioning race in a comment doesn't make your comment racist. If someone says, "Barack Obama is the first black president," does that mean they said something racist? How do you define racism?Kevin Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08238649458932164077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-64928754761471356552009-06-03T16:51:23.052-04:002009-06-03T16:51:23.052-04:00You don't have to become a robot, to put aside...You don't have to become a robot, to put aside your biases. It's part of the challenge of holding such a position.<br /><br />1. How is an organization called The Race, that has close ties to hate groups like MECHA, racist? Seriously.<br /><br />As for the NAACP, there have been occasions where its leadership has been racist and anti-semitic. But nowhere in the La Raza range.<br /><br />2. Making policy is the job of the legislature. Applying the law is the job of the judiciary. Even Sotomayor understood that her comment was completely wrong, even while she was making it. But it's also a symptom of the judicial activism that has overrun the legal system.<br /><br />3. Do I need to quote what she actually said again? She very clearly mentioned race. Had any Republican candidate for the court made the reverse statement, would you really be okay with it?Daniel Greenfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11368628.post-42633216354683163782009-06-03T16:04:59.193-04:002009-06-03T16:04:59.193-04:00Drum, your right about Clarence Thomas, and that&#...Drum, your right about Clarence Thomas, and that's the reasons that many African Americans do not support him. He's a good example of why you don't put people on the bench just because of their race. You have to look at a person's record and ask how they use the tools they have - their education, their cognitive skills, their ability to communicate, and their experience, to reach legally sound judgements. Race inherently goes into the mix of all of this.<br /><br />Sultan Knish, I just don't believe that any judge of any race can transform him or herself into a completely objective robot. What you know and how you process information impacts how you interpret and apply law. Now, of course you have to apply the law in a just way. If you really look at Sotomayor's speech, especially what came after the "wise Latina" statement, you'll see this is what she's really talking about: how people apply the law in a fair way in spite of their various experiences.<br /><br /><i>Sotomayor was a member of a racist organization, believes that her role is to make policy and has described herself as more fit because of her race, all these are fundamental disqualifying factors.</i><br /><br />1. What racist organization? La Raza? How are they racist? I guess the NAACP and any other minority-rights organization are also racist.<br />2. On the whole policy issue, again look at what she actually said, and you'll see that she's making a point that many legal scholars agree with. It's the judiciary's job to interpret the law. Inevitably, they make policy, because they decide how the legislature's laws will be applied - that's their job.<br />3. I think it's an unfair evaluation of her words to say that her race makes her a better judge than a white man. I think she was saying that the experiences she has as a result of her race make her more equipped than if she never had those experiences.<br /><br />But why did I even write that when I know you'll twist my words, too?Kevin Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08238649458932164077noreply@blogger.com