Sotomayor and the Politics of Public Humiliation

One of the most enduring images of the Civil Rights Movement is of Elizabeth Eckford. She is being harassed and taunted by a group of white students, parents, and police on her way to desegregate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. On that morning Eckford missed connecting with the eight other African American students of the Little Rock Nine and their NAACP leader, Daisy Bates. Eckford was alone when the angry crowd surrounded and confronted her.

The photo is now iconic. Eckford's dignity, strength, and self-possession are stunning counterpoint to the contorted, hate-filled faces of those following her.

This image of Eckford kept returning to me as I watched the Senate confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor. Although Sotomayor herself deplores metaphor and analogy, Eckford's harassment seemed an apt comparison to the hearings. Although her confirmation was nearly certain, Republican senators were determined to make Sotomayor walk a gauntlet on her way to the Supreme Court.

After Anita Hill's testimony, Clarence Thomas famously called his confirmation hearings a "high-tech lynching." Yes, he was a powerful black man subjected to white interrogation about sex, but it was a terrible analogy because no group of white men has ever formed a posse to lynch a black man in defense of a sexually degraded black woman. The lynching imagery was powerful nonetheless and Thomas forcefully deployed it against the senators. It framed a particular, historic understanding of black men's vulnerability within white-dominated systems of power. Women of color have fewer metaphors available to contextualize their degradation and dehumanization. For me the Sotomayor hearings were an Elizabeth Eckford moment.

Like Eckford, Sotomayor has been praised for her dignity, her stillness, and the evenness of her voice as she responded to hostile mischaracterizations. She managed to laugh off sexist jokes. She didn't flinch when she was repeatedly interrupted. Senator Lindsey Graham warned that her confirmation could only be derailed if she had "a complete meltdown." The rules of the game were set: the Senators could mischaracterize her record, accuse her of racial bias, and mispronounce her name but she could not respond in kind. She could not be hurt or offended or angry. She had to remain a pillar of rationality and neutrality and control.

The hearing was a performance of a broader set of social rules that govern race and gender interactions in American politics. Women, and most especially black and brown women, have to prove their fitness for public life by demonstrating the ability to endure harsh brutality without openly fighting back. The ability to bear up under public degradation is a test of worth. America's favorite black woman heroine is Rosa Parks, a woman who is remembered as silently enduring the humiliation of being ejected from a public bus for refusing to comply with segregated seating.

Sotomayor passed the test. She met the Senators' questioning with thoughtful responses. Her voice did not quiver. Her face did not scowl. Many women of all races feel inspired by her. But I wonder about this lesson that continues to teach women that we can only have space in the public realm as long as we control all emotion.

Undoubtedly part of the power of the non-violent Civil Rights Movement was its ability to reveal the evil of segregation by displaying the segregationist's disproportionate response to upstanding citizens. Yet one of the reasons black power emerged from the rubble of the Civil Rights Movement was to fulfill another basic human need: the desire for self- defense when attacked.

All Supreme Court nominees endure tough, ideologically driven questioning. It's as true for white male conservative justices as for Sotomayor. But this public display took on different meaning as white men repeatedly asserted that Sotomayor was capable of making legal judgments based only on her personal experience and ethnic identity.

I was proud of Sotomayor's restraint, but I also wanted her to counter attack, to punch back, to show anger. She couldn't do so in part because she is bound by the rules of judicial decorum. She also couldn't do so because of the racialized, gender rules of political engagement that allow white men, from senators to firemen, to express outrage, indignation, and emotion, but disallow those same expressions from women of color.

Such restraint comes at a cost. Elizabeth Eckford must have been terrified and hurt behind those dark shades, but she never shows it. Sotomayor must have been angry at times this week, but it never showed. They are each powerful trailblazers whose dignified response is estimable. They are also morality tales that suggest women still have little room for public displays of emotional self-defense.

The Republican attacks on Sotomayor were not meant to derail her nomination. They were meant to degrade and humiliate as a warning: if you attempt to assert your equality within a system still dominated by white male racial privilege you may get a place at the table, but not without public punishment.

Comments (118)

1. she's puerto rican, you know?

   Posted by dexter666 at 07/17/2009 @ 4:17pm

2. What a sickening example of left wing hypocrisy.

   I enjoy it though. It strengthens my resolve to fight.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 07/17/2009 @ 4:25pm

3. With all due respect to Prof. Harris-Lacewell, the comparison is anything but apt. Comparing the grace and fortitude of Ms. Eckford in the face of life-threatening danger to Sonia Sotomayor's participation in an entirely normal confirmation hearing is at best absurd and at worst insulting.

   Judge Sotomayor had as tough a time being subjected to questioning as the last several nominees; her private statements and participation in organizations was questioned along with her rulings. She showed proper restraint (rebuffing the ridiculous 'bully' charges), but her answers were as rehearsed and expected as the questions.

   Sometimes, Prof. Harris-Lacewell, the most simple answer really is the correct one; perhaps the Republican senators genuinely disagree with her statements and/or percieved judicial philosophy. All potential judges should be examined thoroughly, even if it means silly spectacles and questions.

   Posted by liberalcorner at 07/17/2009 @ 4:46pm

4. Excellent piece.

   Justice Sotomayor's turn will come repeatedly over the years, as she gets to vote to protect women, minorities & limit the privileges of property arrogated at the expense of We the People. Rightwing members of the USSC will humiliate her only at the risk of being exposed in her opinions.

   Posted by sloper at 07/17/2009 @ 4:47pm

5. I only watch part of the hearings and listened to sound bites on the radio. I couldn't help thinking that there is something wrong with this system when a "well qualified" the highest rating from the ABA gets humilated while the senators sat in judgement. While its there job to ask the tough question they seemed to be more concerned with race versus the decision from cases the judge heard. If there was more focus there then yes i would think there is a level of fairness. But if we continue or allow our politicians to act like bully's then we as a nation will never grown affirmative action or not.

   Posted by nyu1996 at 07/17/2009 @ 4:55pm

6. MH-L: "......as white men repeatedly asserted that Sotomayor was capable of making legal judgments based only on her personal experience and ethnic identity."

   Of the pieces you've penned, this is quite the worst! Clearly all you're worth, is as a chip-on-shoulder black liberal whose very existence, is based on finding ghosts where none exist!

   In the above paraphrase, don't you think SS's having spoken of her superiority as a female Latina on 7 occasions over ~decade, is pretty darn good reason for everybody, including Libs, to just know, that SS is absolutely "capable of making legal judgments based only on her personal experience and ethnic identity".

   Not only that, it maybe the ONLY way she knows how to deal with cases that involve some accusations of discrimination, JUST LIKE YOU!

   Posted by Happy at 07/17/2009 @ 5:02pm

7. While I agree that the comparison is apt, it occurs to me that there are many situations in American life (not limited to minorities or women) where (apparently) emotionally detached inner strength is more effective than expressing one's internal response to the injustice of the moment.

   Everyday in the Family Courts throughout the country, fathers are subjected to false allegations and considered guilty unless they BOTH prove otherwise and demonstrate that they are unaffected by the bullying to which they have been subjected.

   It's occurs to me that the neanderthal Republican senators dishing out the verbal assault on Judge Sotomayor were grasping for straws because there was nothing substantive for which they could reasonably attack her.

   It also occurs to me that while those senators tried to put forth an air of righteous indignation, they were really playing to the audiences of their home state constituencies who they hope will reelect them to their next term. And in that scenario, there is indeed an extention of the expressions -- projected from those constituencies -- like the students in Arkansas who verbally attacked Ms. Eckford.

   Posted by rockyrococo at 07/17/2009 @ 5:21pm

8. <The Republican attacks on Sotomayor were not meant to derail her nomination. They were meant to degrade and humiliate as a warning: if you attempt to assert your equality within a system still dominated by white male racial privilege you may get a place at the table, but not without public punishment.>

   Ms Lacewell, you are the bigot. I have watched you on Rachel Maddow and your comments here are reflective of the combined victocrat (credits to Larry Elder for that term), and the reverse bigotry of some in the African American population.

   It is attitudes like yours not the Republican Senators that dishonors MLK's dream of a color blind America.

   Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 5:36pm

9. Wow, as usual lots of chips on lots of shoulders.

   As Rockyrococo said above: It also occurs to me that while those senators tried to put forth an air of righteous indignation, they were really playing to the audiences of their home state constituencies who they hope will reelect them to their next term. And in that scenario, there is indeed an extention of the expressions -- projected from those constituencies -- like the students in Arkansas who verbally attacked Ms. Eckford.

   I agree that any rough treatment of Sotomayor was less about a message to minorities to "know your place" but was indeed posturing for their re-elections and overall their warped views of reality.

   Melissa, I enjoy this piece and understand that indeed while it would have been emotionally gratifying to see Sotomayor shoot back quick witted quips to refute some of the bullshit, especially when forced to patiently answer the same charges over and over, or have a Senator summarize her answer in the most inaccurate way...yes that would have been emotionally satisfying like an ice cream sundae. But would as you note, have gained her little but proven she "had a meltdown."

   If anything Sotomayor and other people who DO NOT meltdown provide a better example to Senators and others, that such tactics will prove useless. And perhaps we can end them.

   Obviously this is not a direct comparison to Little Rock, but it does invoke similar instances of someone having to run a guantlet of abuse.

   The one thought that came to me was of Luc Besson's "The Messenger" where Joan of Arc is on trial and how that scene goes into great detail to show how confusing such a barrage can be. Quite frankly, had I been in her place I could spend the next few days crying in bed.

   Posted by manostorgo at 07/17/2009 @ 6:04pm

10. liberalcorner and rockyrococo both nailed it.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/17/2009 @ 6:04pm

11. Oh and for what its worth, while I support Sotomayor's confirmation I know that the "wise Latina" remark was no mistake. She does or at least before this week, did believe that there was a superiority of judgment based on such experiences over a white male without those experiences.

    But quite frankly, I believe that my life experiences give me better judgment than my peers, whether they are African American, European American, Hispanic or Asian, etc. And its been a staple of the Chicano movement in CA to express Brown Pride in a way that slips over the line of equality into superiority. Yet, I don't find that any different than the sense of superiority among wealthy white friends I had as a child. Or some Asian friends I worked with.

    There's an undeniable and possibly natural sense of "my people/culture" is slightly better.

    Call it 99% equality with 1% superiority. If you don't believe me, travel around the world and find out how other countries do it.

    So for what its worth, I excuse and allow Sotomayor to have said that, especially to a group of Latina's in order to inspire.

    Posted by manostorgo at 07/17/2009 @ 6:15pm

12. I have to agree corner. This is quite a ham-handed assertion. These aren't a bunch of bigoted idiots who could end up killing you as you are trying to achieve the simple right of going to school, these are Senators. Yes their questioning is partisan just like Democratic questioning of Alito was partisan. Are you going to make the analogy that Democrats treated Alito like an Italian fresh off the boat during the early years of this country, throwing stones at him? This is a HUGE overstatement of the situation.

    Her confirmation was buisiness as usual nothing more.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 6:16pm

13. This is the type of attitude the black community needs to combat because it makes our children blame whites instead of taking responsibility for ourselves.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 6:24pm

14. This article by Melissa Harris-Lacewell is what liberalism is all about.

    First, to point out an error by Ms. Lacewell. She indicated that Sonia Sotomayor was accused of being a racist.

    Sonia Sotomayor IS a racist. Her rulings and attitudes in the past have clearly shown that, beyond all doubt.

    Ms. Lacewell does in this article what liberals know how to do....look at situations through a racial prism, and accuse people other than the left of racist behavior. She casts this as some kind of morality play.........with Sonia Sotomayor the hero facing up to (with apparent dignity) the indignity of being subject to racist questioning by white men in the Senate.

    Ms. Lacewell then equates the "travail" that Sonia Sotomayor faced with that faced by Elizabeth Eckford as she tried to attend previously segregated Little Rock High School.

    Ms. Lacewell has insulted Elizabeth Eckford big time.

    Sonia Sotomayor in NO WAY faced the situation that Elizabeth Eckford did.

    I have no idea, but if Elizabeth Eckford is alive (she would probably be in her 70's by now) then Ms. Lacewell should seek her out and APOLOGIZE.

    What Ms. Lacewell doesn' t see while she is blinded by her fit of leftist hubris, is that these white male Republicans in the Senate were doing their job. Sonia Sotomayor has displayed a history of doing exactly what the left things judges should do.....bring in personal experience, etc. and personal opinions and leftist agenda into court rulings.

    This is not what judges are constitutionally entitled to do (but of course it is what judges have been doing for years now) and the white male Republicans in the Senate had every right to question Sotomayor on her past.

    Conservatives want equal opportunity for all. Racist leftists see everything through the prism of color.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 6:26pm

15. "This article by Melissa Harris-Lacewell is what liberalism is all about. "

    Actually no, liberalism has nothing to do with this. I don't even need to read the rest of your post because this initial statement renders anything you would say after as being BS. Stop with these generalizations. It makes you sound like a child.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 6:28pm

16. Cccomfo1,

    First, I want to point out I totally agree with your comments about Ms. Lacewell's article.

    I do not agree that liberalism has nothing to do with this. NO, not every liberal belives as Ms. Lacewell believes or acts as Ms. Lacewell acts.......BUT

    Far too many do. This is not the first, nor will it be the last time I see commentary such as Ms. Lacewell's.

    This seems to be a trait of a large portion of the political left.......

    I agree with you, not all liberals act this way or believe this way........but far too many of them do.

    I do not know how to stop "generalizing", in a forum such as this where we are talking generic issues where the common theme is the argument between the general belief of the right and the general belief of the left.

    But I see your point, such language does tend to make an implication that all on the opposite side of the political fence behave a certain way.

    I will try to figure out some kind of language that will "qualify" what I say to indicate that I am not applying a given comment to all, but to the majority of people on a given side of the political fence, or to indicate it is the prevailing belief, or something like that.

    Sorry.

    If you go back and read my post you will see that my thoughts are generally in agreement with yours on this issue.

    I will work on my language. I am not being sarcastic. I see your point.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 6:44pm

17. Very interesting. I would have presumed that readers of the Nation were progressives, so I can only presume that the angry, contorted racist faces polluting this comments thread are the spiritual descendants of the pigs in the above photo, come here to fling their feces at Melissa Harris-Lacewell, the Elizabeth Eckford of today.

    Thanks for writing, Ms. Harris-Lacewell. Your post is thought-provoking, and your commenters prove its essential truth.

    Posted by abrauer at 07/17/2009 @ 6:44pm

18. Very interesting. I would have presumed that readers of the Nation were progressives, so I can only presume that the angry, contorted racist faces polluting this comments thread are the spiritual descendants of the pigs in the above photo, come here to fling their feces at Melissa Harris-Lacewell, the Elizabeth Eckford of today.

    Thanks for writing, Ms. Harris-Lacewell. Your post is thought-provoking, and your commenters prove its essential truth.

    Posted by abrauer at 07/17/2009 @ 6:45pm

19. Very interesting. I would have presumed that readers of the Nation were progressives, so I can only presume that the angry, contorted racist faces polluting this comments thread are the spiritual descendants of the pigs in the above photo, come here to fling their feces at Melissa Harris-Lacewell, the Elizabeth Eckford of today.

    Thanks for writing, Ms. Harris-Lacewell. Your post is thought-provoking, and your commenters prove its essential truth.

    Posted by abrauer at 07/17/2009 @ 6:45pm

20. I have to agree with you here Larry, her attitude is the kind I have disliked the most growing up. She is carrying a chip on her shoulder, there is a big difference between real racism and imagined racism. These Senators were not being racist. They were subjecting her to the normal line of questioning. The assertions this author made are indicative of someone who is bigoted toward whites.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 6:22pm

    Thx CCC. We both have met this kind of reverse bigot and the negative output they give to the efforts of everyone who is trying to erase bigotry and racism.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 6:52pm

21. abrauer,

    You absolutely do not understand this issue..Go back and read my posts.

    If Ms. Lacewell's picture were included with the article, it would be the one with the angry, contorted racist face.

    A good portion of Conservatives believe in what Martin Luther King, Jr. said...they believe in equality of opportunity....they believe that in this society the color of one's skin does not matter, but it is the content of their character.

    It seems that people who believe this most strongly come from Texas.

    A Texan, Lyndon B. Johnson, believed this and worked hard for it.

    I do not agree with the methods he used regarding the Great Society. I recognize he promoted that because he honestly wanted to make life better for people. He grew up in the Texas hill country and saw poverty close up in his own life and as a schoolteacher.

    If he were alive today he would be trying new approaches. He would be the first to admit the Great Society backfired and he would be promoting new approaches that he would feel would work. He would not be, like a lot of liberals today do, promoting more of what has been proven not to work.

    Lyndon B. Johnson would be hard at work trying to make life better for people. He is one of the best Presidents we ever had, because he genuinely wanted to make life better for people.

    This is me, a Conservative, saying this. I have read a lot about Lyndon B. Johnson, I have read more about him than any other President.

    One of the other Presidents from Texas, George W. Bush, also tried to make life better for people.

    He talked about the soft bigotry of low expectations. What that means is that it is bigoted to assume that someone of color can not achieve because of past injustices.

    I guess we need to elect more Presidents from Texas.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 6:57pm

22. Not all people who claim to be conservative believe as I said up above. There are fringe people who claim conservatism who are racist beyond belief.

    Most Conservatives and Republicans disown those people and want nothing to do with them.

    Not all liberals want to keep pushing big government Great Society stuff. There are Democrats, such as the Blue Dog Democrats, who do not believe in that.

    And another observation...... a lot of these "labels" seem to apply to national issues......

    Although at the local level candidates for offices such as Mayor, or City Councilperson, or City Alderperson, County Clerk, etc are associated with political parties.....there is not the national ideology involved in those races.......

    Those contests seem more aligned with local issues that do not fit into the same framework as the ideological issues at the national level.....

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 7:05pm

23. Thank you for this nuanced article pointing out the subtle results of challenges to the status quo. I found it illuminating.

    Posted by Betian at 07/17/2009 @ 7:07pm

24. I will have to qualify my statement up above.....because I am sure Mask is prowling the blog and will post in with some kind of comment.

    I said we need to elect more Presidents from Texas, which is true, Texas seems to produce Presidents who try and make life better for people.

    But, Alaska also seems to be a good place to find a future President, as well...you betcha it is!

    So I should have said that we need to elect more Presidents from Texas after the year 2021, when the first President from Alaska will have completed her 8 years of service.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 7:18pm

25. Sjchermak: You say "Sonia Sotomayor has displayed a history of doing exactly what the left things (sic) judges should do.....bring in personal experience, etc. and personal opinions and leftist agenda into court rulings."

    Please enlighten me. What are the names of the cases (since you say "history," I'm assuming there's more than one case) where Sotomayor brought in her "personal experience," "personal opinions," and a "leftist agenda?" Please provide examples from those opinions, if possible.

    Take your time. You'll have a lot of reading to do.

    Posted by RMT at 07/17/2009 @ 8:02pm

26. I wonder if Ms. Harris-Lacewell watched the Bork hearings...

    Posted by Thrawn at 07/17/2009 @ 8:31pm

27. "I do not agree that liberalism has nothing to do with this. NO, not every liberal belives as Ms. Lacewell believes or acts as Ms. Lacewell acts.......BUT"

    Let me ask you. Does the fact that most KKK members or Neo-Nazis identify as conservative mean that's what conservatism is about? I see plenty of bigots posting an identifying as conservative does that mean that's what the conservative movement is about. If you answer no then you have just destroyed your entire previous argument.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 8:36pm

28. RMT,

    Back at you:

    The New Haven, Connecticut firefighter case

    Hayden v. Pataki, 2006

    1981 memo declaring capital punishment associated with racism in society

    Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)

    Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)

    Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)

    Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)

    Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)

    Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)

    Didden v. Port Chester

    2001 speech "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"…"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

    2005 Comment on how court is where policy is made:

    "......court of appeals is where policy is made. In a moment of truth she let it slip and added: And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. O.K. I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it … But the problem is she just did, and she did so in a contemptuous way. In backpedaling and trying to retract her own words, you can hear people in the room laughing, as though the corruption of the judicial branch should not be taken seriously...."

    Is this enough for now?

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 8:50pm

29. If you go back and read my post you will see that my thoughts are generally in agreement with yours on this issue.

    I will work on my language. I am not being sarcastic. I see your point.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 6:44pm

    I appreciate this. When you see all liberals think a certain way you lump me in with people. Which is why I am personally insulted. I don't not think the way Lacewell does and never have. I grew up being taught that not everyone is racist. I went to white schools and black schools, and while I have encountered my fair share of racism I don't carry those experiences with me every day. To me they are isolated incidents that happened and are not indicative of anything. Yes racism is still present in America to deny that is to be a fool. But to make the assertion that a group is racist because they subjected someone to the normal amount of partisan questioning is foolish.

    I constantly see people here making large assertions about the left or the right. I feel personally insulted when someone says all liberals do something and I don't fall into that category. Because if we paint with a broad brush like that then I should be lumping you in with every fringe backwoods hick racist there is because most of them vote conservative. I don't because I know that life isn't black and white.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 8:51pm

30. Thx CCC. We both have met this kind of reverse bigot and the negative output they give to the efforts of everyone who is trying to erase bigotry and racism.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 6:52pm

    It's one of my biggest gripes with the black community. My mother taught me that racism is going to be a fact of life so don't bother harping on it. When it happens just realize it's someone else's ignorance and move on. I think blacks too often blame racism for their problems and use it as an excuse to not even try. "Why bother to try to get the job it's just going to get taken by some white man." It's a sad thing and is completely contrary to what MLK preached. I don't know if you saw Obama's speech to the NAACP a night or two ago but it basically encapsulated my feelings on this issue.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 8:54pm

31. Cccomfo1,

    I have not destroyed my argument.

    I can not explain why a KKK lowlife or a neo-nazi scumbag would identify themselves as conservative.

    I do not speak for them, you would have to ask them.

    BUT....I told you already in my post above that Conservatives disown those people.....Conservatives do not want to be associated with those people.....Conservatives reject their opinions and philosophy.

    I alluded to that above, already. I already answered no before you asked me the question, thus I fail to see how I destroyed my argument, since I said no before you asked me and I answered no.

    I would say that those fringe low-life scum do not understand what Conservatism is about. When they identify themselves as Conservatives, they themselves lack a total understanding of what the Conservative movement is, and they are co-opting Conservatism for their own distorted purposes.

    And a portion of the left (not all of the left, but some) buy into this and associate Conservatism with those fringe groups.

    You try to make the case that I make blanket statements about liberals. And I have conceded to you that not all liberals exhibit the fringe behavior that some Conservatives associate with all liberals, such as America-blame and America-hate and willingness to capitulate and surrender to one's enemy and blame oneself for why your enemy hates you and wants you dead.

    You have indicated it is wrong for me to assume all liberals believe this and I have said I will try to qualify my opinions in the future.

    So, you need to do the same.

    Conservatism is exemplified by people such as the next-President of the United States, Sarah Palin.

    It was exemplified by President Ronald Reagan.

    That is what conservatism is.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 9:00pm

32. Sjchermak. Nice list. However, you neglected to explain to me how each of these cases supports your point?

    You seem to expect me to do your work for you. Since you have declared that Sotomayor has a history of injecting a particular agenda into her decisions, you bear the burden demonstrating that.

    Try again. This time, you may actually have to read some cases (try reading the ones you listed.) I realize it may take some time, but there's no easy path to becoming an informed citizen; it takes some effort....

    Posted by RMT at 07/17/2009 @ 9:02pm

33. RMT,

    I have already pasted incidences where it is obvious that Sonia Sotomayor believes in judicial activism.

    She apparently thinks the courts are there to make policy.

    She apparently thinks that life experiences are important in making judicial decisions.

    It is obvious from her public comments... I have pasted probably the two worst examples.

    There is no need for me to try again........I have provided you the evidence....quotes that have appeared in many places in the public domain.

    Maybe Sonia Sotomayor thinks she is Canadian, applying for a job in Canada.

    As I posted on a different thread last week, the Constitution of Canada is totally different.

    It is based on a couple of major documents, and also a whole series of rulings and acts over the years .....AND.....also based on customs that are not codified in writing......AND ...Constitutional authority in Canada can be based on rulings in other places, especially the UK, France and here in the United States.....

    But that is Canada...that is how it works in Canada....not here in the United States......

    Here in the United States the judicial branch of government is NOT a law making branch and the source of constitutional authority is the Constitution.....as written....that is it....and the source of legal authority are the laws and codes as written....and that is it......

    Judicial rulings based on life experience, or current societal norms, or rulings in other countries are NOT, repeat NOT, supposed to be in place here in the United States of America......

    They, of course, have been....in the case of the Supreme Court, since the Warren Court.......

    And Sonia Sotomayor's past statements, on the public record, have shown agreement with this mis-understanding of judicial authority.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 9:25pm

34. sjchermak.

    You stated that Sotomayor has a history of inserting an agenda into her judicial decisions, but you seem unable to provide any evidence of this.

    If she were a "judicial activist," there would be evidence of this among the many cases she has decided.

    Certainly, she has been a judge long enough that certain patterns suggesting "judicial activism" would have emerged. Wouldn't you agree?

    You are tenacious in your beliefs - I'll give you that.

    Posted by RMT at 07/17/2009 @ 10:18pm

35. Conservatism is exemplified by people such as the next-President of the United States, Sarah Palin.

    It was exemplified by President Ronald Reagan.

    That is what conservatism is.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 9:00pm

    I don't think either one of those examples is true but that is moot. I think true conservatism was lost inthe Reagan era. I think Palin is a neo-conservative and stands for nothing that a true conservative stands for. But that is just me. She definitely won't be our next President though. Pretty much everyone agrees that you can't quit your job and then run for President.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 10:44pm

36. Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 9:25pm

    I think you are missing his point. He wants an explanation from you on all of the things you pasted about how the decision she made was from personal experience and contrary to the law. You have yet to hold up that portion of the bargain. You have pasted examples but not an explanation of how those examples were decisions made of personal experience.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 10:47pm

37. Very good, thoughtful article.

    My only criticism is that the author should have said, "if you attempt to assert your equality within a system still dominated by white male racial and gender privilege . . ."

    When people make disparaging comments about women of color, we need to say they are both racist AND sexist. It lets men of all races off the hook when we just say that the remarks are racist.

    Posted by ktrig at 07/17/2009 @ 10:48pm

38. Of Sotomayors cases that made it to the Supreme Court she has an 80% rate of OVERTURN!

    However, the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats believe she is appropriate material for the highest court in the land when she was just narrowly approved for the federal bench previously! Now that is something to be proud of!

    Wonder how she would do with the necessary basic training and education in taking the New Haven Fire Dept. test????

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/17/2009 @ 10:55pm

39. Justice Alito said almost the same thing regarding his performance as a judge as it relates to his personal experiences of his family being discriminated against because of their ethnicity and religion.

    When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. - Samuel Alito

    There was not tumult in the hearings over this

    So is it sexism or racism or both?

    Posted by koroviev at 07/18/2009 @ 12:33am

40. One more time. Your worthless, pathetic republicans LOST power and will never get it back! That is what carl rove did for you! He destroyed ALL credibility forever in your party and YOU let him! It is amazing how republican put clarence thomas, who was a rapist, in the Supreme Court. republicans had NO problem with his ignorant, inabilities, and criminal experiences. But they bitched about the great Bill Clinton endlessly. Fuck your jealous, worthless asses!

    Posted by Tiger2Lover at 07/18/2009 @ 06:22am

41. It is sickening how you fucked in the head republicans look the other way when right wing crazy fucks make up policy and law in their insane minds, rather than what the law and common sense and humanity dictates. republicans put people last and always will. They lie and tell you the opposite. American needs to banish these crazy, fringe nuts to the lands beneath hell.

    Posted by Tiger2Lover at 07/18/2009 @ 06:27am

42. Because generally speaking the experiences and attitudes of white males have been defined as the official societal norm for years and years (yes I know that men are people and have widely varying experiences, etc.), a man upholding these is likely to be seen as "objective" and acting within juridicial tradition, even when his decisions result in blatant discrimination. I point to the Ledbetter case. When someone like Sotomayor points out that her life experiences are just as valid, the guys go through the roof.

    Samuel Alito never had to make a speech saying that he, as a white man, was qualified to make judicial decisions. I believe he is a conservative Catholic, and conservative Catholics don't believe in the equality of women - but no one ever brought that up in his confirmation hearings.

    Of course our judicial ideal is objectivity, color/gender blindness and respect for the law. I don't think anyone actually thinks that Sotomayor lacks these qualities. I agree with previous posters that the Republican senators were grandstanding for their constituencies - some of whom bought it and are posting their idiocies on this thread.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/18/2009 @ 07:14am

43. The conservative response to Judge Sonia Sotomayor can be easily accounted for with the following account of conservative philosophical assumptions.

    A: There is only one kind of virtue, and there is only one set of qualifications for every office.

    B: Virtue and qualifications are quantifiable, and we can measure them objectively. Therefore:

    C: There is no value in diversity.

    D: Everybody can be placed on a single scale of virtue and competence, and people differ only in one way, namely in how high or how low they are ranked on this scale. This claim has two corollaries and one unspoken assumption:

    Corollary 1: The claim that one is the equal of a white, hetero, Anglo-American man necessarily entails the claim that one does not differ from them significantly.

    Corollary 2: Any claim that one differs from a white, hetero, Anglo-American man is a claim either to superiority to all people of this category, which is racist, or an admission of inferiority, which is disqualifying.

    Unspoken Assumption behind D: The white, hetero, Anglo-American man is the standard by which all humankind must be measured.

    Before the Civil Rights movement, this assumption was both stronger and spoken aloud: it was that only white, hetero, Anglo-American men were qualified for any public office. Since the Civil Rights movement, it has been revised to allow that some non-white, non-hetero, non-Anglo candidates may qualify, but only insofar as they do not differ significantly from white, hetero, Anglo-American men.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/18/2009 @ 09:41am

44. The liberal assumptions, in contrast, are these:

    A: Virtue and qualifications are quantifiable only to a limited degree. From this it follows that:

    A1. All judgements of virtue and qualifications are to some degree subjective and inaccurate.

    A2. There is value both in diversity and in democracy, because out of several subjective, inaccurate judgements, there can emerge a composite judgement that is less subjective and more accurate.

    Comment: If A. were NOT true, then perhaps it would be better for us all to choose the most highly qualified individual, using reliable and quantifiable criteria, to rule us all as a monarch, rather than bothering with all this messy democracy. Of course, it is questionable whether we moral inferiors are able to discern who is morally superior.

    B. Historically, our society has judged white, hetero, Anglo-American men as more virtuous and better qualified for public office than people of any other category, but this is a subjective and generally false judgement.

    C. Presently, most people who are empowered to judge the virtue and qualifications of applicants for public office are still white, hetero, Anglo-American men. People of this group subjectively prefer other white, hetero, Anglo-American men, especially if they do not realize that they have any subjective preference at all, or believe that their judgement is purely the result of a flawless objective assessment (which, according to A. above, does not exist).

    D. Although subjective preferences cannot be eliminated, their political effect can be eliminated by increasing diversity in all public offices, while their economic effect can be eliminated by increasing diversity in corporate governance. One effective tool for increasing diversity is Affirmative Action.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/18/2009 @ 09:45am

45. I'd like to add that one of the ORIGINAL mottoes of our nation, "e pluribus unum," means "out of many, one" and seems to be an endorsement of the assumption that I have called "A2" in my previous posting:

    "A2. There is value both in diversity and in democracy, because out of several subjective, inaccurate judgements, there can emerge a composite judgement that is less subjective and more accurate."

    Since 1956, of course, our country's official motto has become "in God we trust," but this phrase, known to us primarily from coins, seems to inform not so much our political philosophy in general as our financial system in particular.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/18/2009 @ 10:01am

46. There can be no comparison between the two events, or between the two individuals. The only thing protecting Ms. Eckford from being lynched on the spot was the presence of Us Army troops. Her dignified restraint is a result of generations of white indoctrination. Even with the presence of troops and the press, she realized that any response to the hateful bigotry being directed at her would have resulted in an immediate physical attack. The courage she displayed was indicative of most who were involved in The Movement at the time. It may be hard for folk to grasp today, but that girl put her life on the line for principle. And she knew it. It should be noted that Ms. Eckford was turned away at the schoolhouse doors. Ms. Eckford's story may be an inspiration to Judge Sotomayor, but I doubt even she would accept the comparison. Judge Sotomayor faced a completely different set of circumstances when she was getting her education. She did not need to risk her safety. She benefitted from laws enacted as a result of the struggle Ms. Eckford participated in. I have no doubt Her Honor needed to draw upon the same inner strength, determination and commitment as Ms. Eckford to achieve her goals. And I have no doubt Her Honor faced many challenges and obstacles during her career. But the simple fact of the matter remains that Her Honor simply did not or does not today face the same dangers imposed by white bigotry in the South during the '50's and '60's. In order to experience that, she needs to move to Maricopa County, Arizona and set up residence under Sherrif Joe's watch. Or possibly walk by any Minuteman demonstration. Then she may be able to more closely experience the dangers faced by Ms. Eckfordrd and her contemporaries.

    Posted by sawbuck at 07/18/2009 @ 10:28am

47. 'There can be no comparison between the two events, or between the two individuals.'

    Of course there can be, "sawbuck." Comparison is ALWAYS possible.

    Of course, I agree with you that there is no EQUIVALENCY here. Judge Sotomayor is not Ms. Eckford, just as 2009 is not 1957.

    As I understand it, Harris-Lacewell's argument fits in the pattern that we call ANALOGY, that is, "A is to B as C is to D." Judge Sotomayor, then, is in 2009 what Ms. Elizabeth Eckford was in 1957. The two women are not equivalent, but they are analogous.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/18/2009 @ 10:40am

48. posted by JacobFabian 7/18/2009 @9:41 and 9:45am

    What a nice clear-headed elaboration of the conservative & liberal positions. Thank you.

    It's interesting though, that many conservatives were not in favor of objective criteria for judges, public office or jobs, back when objective criteria were an argument for letting women and blacks into said positions. They only became committed to "the best person for the job" when it became their last bastion of defense.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 07/18/2009 @ 11:16am

49. I don't get it: an at-best mediocre, middle-of-the-road choice for the high court faced confirmation hearings that, at best, were an excuse for some idiot senators to give silly speeches in the face of a foregone conclusion (the middle-of-the-road choice would be confirmed).

    Why is anyone even paying attention to Sotomayor? She doesn't bring any sort meaningful change or difference to the high court with her and her confirmation hearings were a) free of any risk of her being rejected and b) silly.

    Posted by syfriendly at 07/18/2009 @ 11:28am

50. One thing that was made plain as Judge Sotomayor endured the taunting of her interlocutors was that the American political landscape is afflicted with an almost total intellectual aridity. So complete is the desertification that no offshoot of logic or sense is to be allowed to make the most cursory appearance. The laughably transparent"strategy" employed by the GOP in attempting to oppose the confirmation ,was so puerile, so devoid of substance or sense as to render the exercise futile at best and contemptible at worst.How can a country with a population of 300 million have such inferior leaders?How do these people get elected? How do they remain in office after they have publicized to the world that they lack any acquaintance with intelligence , rationality or even honesty ? How do people completely devoid of conscience or sense, consumed by their overweening pomposity manage to bamboozle others into giving them power? What does it say about this nation that we are represented by such shoddy merchandise?It's frightening to think of what goes on behind closed doors when this type of degraded spectacle is played out in public and then commented upon by by the dunderheads who pass for journalists in this deadly desert where ideas and ideals go to die.

    Posted by Brocanteuse at 07/18/2009 @ 1:35pm

51. From one of the top 2 lawyer-bloggers, John Hinderaker:

    Sotomayor: Mission Accomplished, Sort Of

    July 18, 2009 Posted by John at 10:21 AM

    The Rasmussen survey, which initially found that the Sotomayor confirmation hearing was having little or no effect on public opinion, now finds that in the end, the nominee got a good bounce:

    Rasmussen Reports national telephone polling conducted Wednesday and Thursday night shows that 44% favor Sotomayor's confirmation while 37% are opposed. That's a big bounce from yesterday when just 37% favored her confirmation.

    I interpret that as a sign that Sotomayor's impersonation of a conservative worked. Still, this seems remarkable:

    Forty-five percent (45%) hold a favorable opinion of Sotomayor while 46% hold an unfavorable view.

    It must be frustrating, sometimes, to be a liberal. When John Roberts and Sam Alito testified before the Judiciary Committee, they didn't have to misrepresent their views by pretending to be liberals. But Sonia Sotomayor had to pretend to subscribe to a conservative view of the law and the role of judges. To the extent that Americans saw this and believed it, support for her confirmation grew.

    Posted by Happy at 07/18/2009 @ 1:54pm

52. Sotomayor was an example of intelligent prudence and dignity in the hearings. I found her attitude worth of praise.

    Never the 'wise Latina' commentary seemed more fit. She is indeed a wise Latina that is able to see what conservative southern Republican senators cannot see and therefore would not be able to appraise or judge. That is, how they despise anyone they feel is "not worth of being our equal". That was it all about in the hearings (at least for the Republican side). It is all about their neurotic fear that power will go away from them (and the interested groups they defend) to go and be vested onto the American people. The vast majority of the people in America, which is from all colors and ideas but only have in common a desire for justice and equality among all men and women.

    She demonstrated - as in any geometrical theorem - she was right. None of the Jeff Sessions-like WASP persons was able to 'judge her' (that is appraise her) with dignity and compassion. Therefore, her assertion that a wise Latina women may be able to judge better than a white man in certain circumstances is true, because this kind of person has been (at any one stage in their lives) occupying the side of the offended, and can calibrate these offenses- as when she herself was offended in the Senate. While a white conservative male may not even notice those offenses either due to his instinct perception that those 'differences between persons are natural and occur on every instance in society' or to his outright conscious plain negation of rights to other people.

    Congratulations for Ms. Sotomayor, I just want her to be much more outspoken for justice in the Supreme Court!

    Posted by Frank42 at 07/18/2009 @ 2:34pm

53. Despite the pessimistic responses left as commentary to this piece, I love the comparison. While Ms. Eckford was indeed in greater danger at this time, the Republican Senators who questioned Ms. Sotamayor were in fact attempting to berate a woman with whom they would never be able to compare. The comparison between Sotamayor and Eckford can be used to show how similar, yet different the two situations were, but at the end of the day the intimidation towards both women was used for the same purpose. The comparison was needed Dr. Lacewell to allow people to see how far we have come as well as far we have to go.

    Posted by nicoleaprilcarter at 07/18/2009 @ 2:49pm

54. Posted by Tiger2Lover at 07/18/2009 @ 06:27am

    I hope our legal system has imposed some restraints on your ability to operate moving equipment for the greater public good and your own safety

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 4:11pm

55. Oh god this "intimidation" and "humiliation"stuff has got to stop!!! Thehearings were a joke. The nominee faced a foregone confirmation by the partisan numbers. The silly commentary by the republicans made fools of them. This woman was not threatened or intimidated. Such claims amount to hyperbole at best. She had to sit with astraight face as the sole burning hoop to jump through. Get over the "intimidation" thing, that is just laughable. The web log entry is really hysterical and silly, unusual for it's author.

    Posted by syfriendly at 07/18/2009 @ 4:14pm

56. "Of Sotomayors cases that made it to the Supreme Court she has an 80% rate of OVERTURN!"

    cases being overturned by the supreme court is a useless statistic.

    first--imagine for a moment that Al Gore had won the 2000 election (oh, wait, you don't have to imagine that, but I digress). Anyhow, imagine that Gore had served as President the two terms before Obama and instead of two conservative appointees (Roberts and Alito) there had been two liberal appointees. The cases that have gone 5-4 in favor of conservative political policy would have gone 6-3 (perhaps even 7-2, kennedy wouldn't be the "swing vote" anymore and would probably want to be on the winning side) in favor of liberal political policy. you think sotomayor's overturn rate is as high then? of course not.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 5:06pm

57. "The hearing was a performance of a broader set of social rules that govern race and gender interactions in American politics. Women, and most especially black and brown women, have to prove their fitness for public life by demonstrating the ability to endure harsh brutality without openly fighting back. The ability to bear up under public degradation is a test of worth. America's favorite black woman heroine is Rosa Parks, a woman who is remembered as silently enduring the humiliation of being ejected from a public bus for refusing to comply with segregated seating."

    "All Supreme Court nominees endure tough, ideologically driven questioning. It's as true for white male conservative justices as for Sotomayor." -Lacewell

    So, got it straight? When Dems question Alito and Roberts, it's "tough, ideologically driven questioning". When Repubs question Sotomayor, it's "harsh brutality" and "public humiliation". Kind of like "torture". Kind of like, Sotomayor was interrogated at Gitmo. Talk about hyperbole!

    Comparing a girl trying to go to SCHOOL while being blocked by ignorant morons, to a woman being vetted for the highest court in the land; is a ridiculous stretch.

    I suggest Lacewell read up on white guilt, as defined by Shelby Steele.

    Posted by twillie at 07/18/2009 @ 5:10pm

58. I don't usually agree with antisocialist on most political issues; but I agree with him whole-heartedly that a judge nominated to the federal courts by a president deserves to be appointed by the senate. that's the game. you win the election, you get your appointees. you don't want the other party's appointees making it to the bench, don't lose elections.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 5:18pm

59. Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 5:18pm

    See, no matter how polar opposite our views are, there is always room for some area of agreement.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 5:19pm

60. I wonder if Lacewell was given the opportunity to interview Sotomayor if she'd ask her if she felt humiliated by any speeches/questions given by republican senators during this process.

    I also wonder if Lacewell would expect the answer to be "yes."

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 5:21pm

61. Yes, antisocialist, there is room for agreement, but I can assure you we reached the same conclusion on that point for different reasons. My reason is that I don't view the courts as non-political institutions; especially not the Supreme Court, a court that gets to pick and choose its own docket.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 5:24pm

62. sjchermak,

    you must, if you want to save face and not seem like a simpleton, explain how sotomayor's personal bias affected the result in the cases you listed (I list them again below for your convenience):

    The New Haven, Connecticut firefighter case

    Hayden v. Pataki, 2006

    Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)

    Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)

    Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)

    Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)

    Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)

    Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)

    Didden v. Port Chester

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/18/2009 @ 5:27pm

63. Or a "Jackie Robinson" moment.

    Jackie Robinson had the same task: to NEVER respond to the taunts and insults. It's the price one pays for being the first whatever, or even the second or third.

    Fortunately, Sotomayor was up to the task, and showed her interrogators up for fools. She also proved that there is a huge double standard of what "competence" means, much less "excellence;" a woman, especially a minority woman, who behaved as badly and as stupidly as some of those Republican Senators would never get passed some municipal make-work office.

    Posted by bcazden at 07/18/2009 @ 7:23pm

64. "a woman, especially a minority woman, who behaved as badly and as stupidly as some of those Republican Senators would never get passed some municipal make-work office." Posted by bcazden at 07/18/2009 @ 7:23pm

    Google Monica Conyers. She went quite a ways past a make-work office.

    Posted by twillie at 07/18/2009 @ 7:43pm

65. Excellent article and apparently some on the right, or would be 'centrists' aren't particularly deep. Most of the Republican Senators were posturing for their base and disrespectful of a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court.

    Our right wing is either quite ignorant or raging against ghosts.

    Judge Sotomayor demonstrated grace under pressure that is beyond the ken of most Republicans today.

    Posted by Dave_C at 07/18/2009 @ 8:33pm

66. This is the type of attitude the black community needs to combat because it makes our children blame whites instead of taking responsibility for ourselves.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/17/2009 @ 6:24pm

    yep. i'm reading this and thinking "boy, that's a stretch".

    and then i see "white male" used pejoratively innumerable times.

    wtf?

    i think ms. harris-lacewell needs to date a honky.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 9:00pm

67. Conservatives want equal opportunity for all. Racist leftists see everything through the prism of color.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 6:26p

    hey, i think "get smart" is on channel 7...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 9:01pm

68. reverse bigot

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/17/2009 @ 6:52pm

    a bigot is a bigot is a bigot.

    saying "reverse" is silly.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 9:03pm

69. I guess we need to elect more Presidents from Texas.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 6:57pm

    hey, look. "twilight zone" is on channel 8.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 9:04pm

70. Conservatism is exemplified by people such as the next-President of the United States, Sarah Palin.

    It was exemplified by President Ronald Reagan.

    That is what conservatism is.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/17/2009 @ 9:00pm

    hmmmm,

    doubling-debt...

    bloating bureaucracies....

    making deals with dictators...

    no thanks.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/18/2009 @ 9:07pm

71. Excellent article and apparently some on the right, or would be 'centrists' aren't particularly deep. Most of the Republican Senators were posturing for their base and disrespectful of a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court.

    Our right wing is either quite ignorant or raging against ghosts.

    Judge Sotomayor demonstrated grace under pressure that is beyond the ken of most Republicans today.

    Posted by Dave_C at 07/18/2009 @ 8:33pm

    Then by all means list for us the racist comments and questions from the Republican Senators. I watched all of the hearings and never heard one. And it's strange that my black and hispanic family didn't think the questions racist either.

    Oh, but I forgot, in liberal parlance, they are Uncle Tom's and sellouts to their race and culture if they embrace conservativism.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 9:28pm

72. Excellent article and apparently some on the right, or would be 'centrists' aren't particularly deep. Most of the Republican Senators were posturing for their base and disrespectful of a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. Our right wing is either quite ignorant or raging against ghosts. Judge Sotomayor demonstrated grace under pressure that is beyond the ken of most Republicans today. Posted by Dave_C at 07/18/2009 @ 8:33pm Then by all means list for us the racist comments and questions from the Republican Senators. I watched all of the hearings and never heard one. And it's strange that my black and hispanic family didn't think the questions racist either. Oh, but I forgot, in liberal parlance, they are Uncle Tom's and sellouts to their race and culture if they embrace conservativism. Posted by antisocialist at 07/18/2009 @ 9:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Dave_C did not say that the Senators were being racist. You must not have read his post. He said that, "our right wing is either quite ignorant or raging against ghosts." Indeed, the Senators were posturing for their base, but whether their base is either ignorant or raging is debatable. However, in liberal parlance, they call your argument a straw man; Dave_C never said the Senators were making racist comments.

    Posted by hdthoreau at 07/18/2009 @ 11:33pm

73. Posted by JakobFabian at 07/18/2009 @ 09:41am

    A. I know of no conservative assumption that there is "one kind of values" and "one set of qualifications" for an office.

    B. Virtue is observable, but I know of no quantitative measure. Qualifications are quantifiable, and most certainly should be quantified.

    c. The "value" of diversity is unknown. Legislating diversity is hazardous, and should be done with great caution.

    D is a simplistic statement that does not describe mainstream conservative philosophy.

    The civil rights movement didn't get rolling until 9 white, hetero, anglo american men gave it a push with Brown v. Board of Education.

    The illusion of continued institutional racism is maintained by the Liberal cultivation of victimhood, and white guilt.

    Posted by twillie at 07/18/2009 @ 11:57pm

74. wtf is "white guilt"?

    humans are nuts.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/19/2009 @ 12:04am

75. operative phrase? .....tick tick tick..... "This restraint comes at a cost." good summation Prof. I hope the dear Justice will live long enough to purge the shit out of this thing we have called a country.

    The Nation mag is lucky to have forged a mirror. Some of these comments should be very useful in court Remember; Brutus, the wise Latina has always saved this armpit of the Western hemisphere. And there will now be a few 21st Century kids to divulge the facts of such.

    Posted by soundcookie at 07/19/2009 @ 01:07am

76. Dr Harris-Lacewell, you have written wisely and you have written well.

    I understand your analogy as being that of a black woman's humiliation vs a Latino woman's humiliation. The common denominator not their race or ethnicity, but they being women.

    It is interesting to note Senator Lindsey Graham's abject apology to then Judge Samuel Alito during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2006 (See clip on The Daily Show Jul 16, 2009).

    Senator Graham first assured Judge Alito that he (Alito) was 'not a bigot' and then apologized to Judge Alito for the fact that he 'and his family had to sit here and listen to this'. The 'this' was, of course, the questioning Judge Alito was submitted to for his membership in a rather dubious organisation.

    We also remember Judge Alito's wife being reduced to tears at this hearing. For Mrs Alito to cry because of questioning of her husband was seen as the highest honour a woman can bestow - especially if she is not in a position to threaten any white, male power structure.

    Judge Sotomayor does not have a husband. She does not have someone else who can provide the emotional outburst in her defence. She had to sit there and be subjected to invective, insinuations, insults and humiliation.

    She is, after all, a 'Latina'. And aren't they the people who are supposed to come and clean the white man's toilets and take care of his children? How dare this Latina woman come and show through her career achievements how competent she really is for the position she is being nominated for?

    And, on top of that, she is not nearly as pretty and sexy as Sarah Palin. She actually studied hard and worked hard. She earned her stripes. How dare she sit there and actually be proud of her achievements? The upstart.

    Posted by HSans at 07/19/2009 @ 01:17am

77. "I have not destroyed my argument. I can not explain why a KKK lowlife or a neo-nazi scumbag would identify themselves as conservative. I do not speak for them, you would have to ask them. BUT....I told you already in my post above that Conservatives disown those people.....Conservatives do not want to be associated with those people.....Conservatives reject their opinions and philosophy... It was exemplified by President Ronald Reagan."--sjchermak

    Where did Reagan kick off his 1980 campaign, and what is the significance of that place?

    Posted by onthehelm at 07/19/2009 @ 08:38am

78. Comparing the Eckard and Sotomayor experiences is enlightening for the impact of aggression on the individual under threat. Ekard's danger was, everyone would agree, mortal danger, while Sotomayor's was an attack on a lifetime's carefully built reputation. Inside, the experience certainly stimulates the same fight-or-flight hormones as the person under attack senses the very real threat. Calling bullying "mobbing" as the British do, emphasizes the relatedness of group physical threats and more subtle social threats.

    Sotomayor was mobbed. The language was not the blunt aggressive talk of the 1950s. The approach was more refined, measured, and understated, but a threat nonetheless. I watched most of the deliberations and noted arrows zinging at her: the compliments followed by devastating reversals; the repeated identical questioning about the "wise Latina" comments; the unethical use of anonymous criticisms to diminish Sotomayor's reputation; the twisting of her record in the Ricci case; the senatorial echoing of right-wing ideologues in front of whom certain elected officials quiver in fear.

    It is laughable that the same senators lauded white male Alito's assertions of how his parents' experience of prejudice against immigrants has an impact on his rulings. Sotomayor would have be excoriated for expressing similar musings.

    She was warned that the opposition wanted her to have a "meltdown". They wanted to incite her to be defensive. They wanted to make the girl cry. She didn't. Her dignity under fire moved us closer to the day when all of us, wise white men included, see faces like our own at the benches of justice.

    Posted by Bridgewater at 07/19/2009 @ 09:00am

79. onthehelm,

    You are behind the 8-ball on this one....Mask plowed this ground long time ago, and came up empty.

    The speech was in Philadelphia, Mississippi.....wherer the three civil rights workers had been murdered.......I told Mask that someone who was racist would not have had the courage to speak there.....but Ronald Reagan had the courage....he was discussing state's rights but not racism.....we had entered a new era in the country because of the efforts of many to stop the racism and segregation in the country....and now the relative amount of governmental power between states and the federal government could be discussed without the prism of race applied.

    Except in the minds of many (not all, but many) on the political left, who interpreted the Reagan speech as coded words to appeal to racists, and who continue, as we see here on The Nation website, to look at things with the prism of race even to this day, even though it is not pertinent to the situation.

    That is unless you run into those like blogger HSans, above, who look at things through the prism of gender as well.

    But these views are created in the minds of those such as you, HSans, and the writer of the article that kicked this thread off, Ms. Lacewell.

    I guess your objective by doing this is to promote your political ideology.......because it is implied by people like you that those of your political beliefs are simon pure on these issues, and those of opposite political beliefs were guilty back then and are still guilty today of all kinds of wrongs...........I guess that may be your objective .......I can only guess unless some of you that engage in this start being honest and admit why you do this.

    Posted by sjchermak at 07/19/2009 @ 11:29am

80. They were meant to degrade and humiliate as a warning??? What stupid leftwing nonsense. I didn't hear any of those concerns when Bork, Thomas or Alito were questioned. To imply asking questions about the belief in the second amendment is out of bounds? If it were not for the Republicans, nothing of substance would have been asked - just windy speeches of "how great you are". To imply the Republicans are racist for simply asking questions? What was it when Estrada was kept off the Appeals court by Democrats when he was given the highest rating by the American Bar, and the dems own internal staff memos said he was opposed Because he was Hispanic?

    Posted by pyeatte at 07/19/2009 @ 1:44pm

81. Of Sotomayors cases that made it to the Supreme Court she has an 80% rate of OVERTURN!

    However, the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats believe she is appropriate material for the highest court in the land when she was just narrowly approved for the federal bench previously! Now that is something to be proud of!

    (Wonder how she would do with the necessary basic training and education in taking the New Haven Fire Dept. test?)

    Good thing there isn't a "written test " for supreme court justice that is "elitistly simplified" to avoid racial discrimination where if she fails she and Obama would have to sue to have a racial quota to promote the P.C. diversity of the court!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 2:44pm

82. wtf is "white guilt"? humans are nuts. Posted by frosty zoom at 07/19/2009 @ 12:04am |

    See Shelby Steele.

    Posted by twillie at 07/19/2009 @ 3:11pm

83. Intresting input in what an American of Latino heritage and distinguished journalist has to say!

    Of Race, Gender and Justice by Linda Chavez 07/18/2009

    "This week I was asked to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Here's what I said.

    I testify today not as a wise Latina woman, but as an American who believes that skin color and national origin should not determine who gets a job, promotion, or public contract, or who gets into college or receives a scholarship.

    My message today is straightforward. Do not vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I say this with some regret, because I believe Judge Sotomayor's personal story is an inspiring one, which proves that this is truly a land of opportunity where circumstances of birth and class do not determine whether you can succeed.

    Unfortunately, based on her statements both on and off the bench, I do not believe Judge Sotomayor necessarily shares that view. It is clear from her record that she has drunk deep from the well of identity politics. I know a lot about that well, and I can tell you that it is dark and poisonous. It is, in my view, impossible to be a fair judge and also believe that one's race, ethnicity, and sex should determine how someone will rule as a judge.

    Despite her assurances to this Committee over the last few days that her statement 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" was simply "a rhetorical flourish that fell flat," nothing could be further from the truth. Judge Sotomayor's words weren't uttered off the cuff.

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 5:56pm

84. They were carefully crafted, repeated -- not just once or even twice -- but at least seven times over several years. If Judge Sotomayor were a white man who suggested that whites or males made better judges, we would not be having this discussion because the nominee would have been forced to withdraw once those words became public.

    Judge Sotomayor's offensive words are a reflection of her much greater body of work as an ethnic activist and judge. Identity politics is at the core of who this woman is. And let me be clear here, I am not talking about the understandable pride in one's ancestry or ethnic roots, which is both common and natural in a country as diverse and pluralistic as ours. Identity politics involves a sense of grievance against the majority, a feeling that racism permeates American society and its institutions, and the belief that members of one's own group are victims in a perpetual power struggle with the majority.

    From her earliest days at Princeton University and later Yale Law School to her 12-year involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund to her speeches and writings, including her jurisprudence, Judge Sotomayor has consistently displayed an affinity for such views.

    As an undergraduate, she actively pushed for race-based goals and timetables in faculty hiring.

    In her senior thesis, she refused to identify the U.S. Congress by its proper name, instead referring to it as the "North American Congress" or the "Mainland Congress."

    During her tenure with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, she urged quota-seeking lawsuits challenging civil-service exams.

    She opposed the death penalty as racist.

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 5:57pm

85. She made dubious arguments in support of bilingual education and tried to equate English language requirements with national origin discrimination.

    As a judge, she dissented from an opinion that the Voting Rights Act does not give prison inmates the right to vote.

    Finally, and perhaps most dramatically, she showed in the New Haven firefighters case a willingness to let her policy preferences guide her, ruling that it was perfectly lawful for the city there to throw out the results of a promotion exam because those who did well on it were the wrong color.

    Although she has attempted this week to back away from her own words -- and has accused her critics of taking them out of context -- the record is clear: Identity politics is at the core of Judge Sotomayor's self-definition. It has guided her involvement in advocacy groups, been the topic of much of her public writing and speeches, and influenced her interpretation of law.

    There is no reason to believe that her elevation to the Supreme Court will temper this inclination, and much reason to fear that it will play an important role in how she approaches the cases that will come before her if she is confirmed. I therefore strongly urge you not to confirm Judge Sotomayor as an associate justice of the Supreme Court."

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 5:59pm

86. That was good, Rio......reading Ms. Chavez's testimony!

    With her on the SC, guess that means she personally will have filled the Hispanic "quota" on it,....and that the women quota, has just been doubled.

    I look for Magic to nominate next, a lesbian judge.... women SC Justices are still under "quota"!

    Posted by Happy at 07/19/2009 @ 6:52pm

87. Hiring an illegal alien and keeping her in a 'semi-slavery' state as a domestic worker and declaring aftwerwards "I guess I always knew she was an illegal alien" disqualifies morally Chavez of any further critical appraisal of Sotomayor.

    All that Chavez can do really well is to " campaign fundraising " for her own pockets and her family's.

    ...and about the bottom line, her account that: "and the belief that members of one's own group are victims in a perpetual power struggle with the majority. ..." If this for Ms. Chavez is not true, just see how was Ms. Sotomayor treated at her audiences...

    the only power struggle here in America is that occurring between the Republicans and their money-interest groups (and companies and banks) against the American people. And Chavez of course is member of the 1st group and therefore hates it when someone from the people gets into the power structure.

    Posted by Frank42 at 07/19/2009 @ 8:01pm

88. "the only power struggle here in America is that occurring between the Republicans and their money-interest groups (and companies and banks) against the American people. And Chavez of course is member of the 1st group and therefore hates it when someone from the people gets into the power structure." Posted by Frank42 at 07/19/2009 @ 8:01pm

    Really? Where do the Dems and their money interest groups come in?

    Please expand on how Chavez having a domestic employee is 'semi-slavery'. Did she not pay the employee? Did she hold the employee against her will? If so, surely Chavez went to jail for it.

    Posted by twillie at 07/19/2009 @ 9:14pm

89. Posted by Frank42 at 07/19/2009 @ 8:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Being an Independent it is alway intresting to me the first response from the Demoncrat side always involves "the politics of personal destruction" which as in the case of Sarah Palin is unrelenting evidencing the Demoncrats still feel threatened by her! As usual it is never factualy based!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 10:46pm

90. The first one:

    So it is OK to have the illegal person working in your home full hours if you pay her? Good ethical standards, congratulations!

    The second one:

    I am only stating the facts about Chavez that are relevant about her credibility. About getting personal, that is what you do with Sotomayor. Sarah Palin? I beg she is nominated candidate.

    Independent? Not factually based? Did you live here the last 8 years? Cause you should have noticed all the 'facts' about Irak's nuclear capability, Iran, the CIA, etc, etc, those are the facts. The only fact is you defend the indefensible and contaminate this liberal blog.

    Posted by Frank42 at 07/19/2009 @ 10:57pm

91. Posted by Frank42 at 07/19/2009 @ 10:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Just like a good Demoncrat, always upholding the constitution and the rule of law and defending such precious rights as "freedom of speech", "infringing on the freedom of the press" ,and making sure that nothing interfers with or "prohibits the free exercise of religion"! (unless of course you're conservative, christian, independent or republican).

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/19/2009 @ 11:57pm

92. left, right, left, right

    stupid proles.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/20/2009 @ 09:18am

93. 'A. I know of no conservative assumption that there is "one kind of values" and "one set of qualifications" for an office.'

    Well, now you do, "twillie"!

    'B. Virtue is observable, but I know of no quantitative measure. Qualifications are quantifiable, and most certainly should be quantified.'

    If virtues aren't quantifiable, then diversity is valuable, as I tried to explain in my second posting above. It is valuable because, in the absence of a single sound measurement acceptable to all, we need as many "second opinions" as we can get.

    'C. The "value" of diversity is unknown. Legislating diversity is hazardous, and should be done with great caution.'

    In other words, my account of conservative opinion is accurate, in your case. Indeed, you find diversity not only valueless, but downright dangerous. Better to stick with the white people you know, eh?

    'D is a simplistic statement that does not describe mainstream conservative philosophy.'

    Yes and no. Yes, it is a simplistic statement. No, you are wrong to say it doesn't describe mainstream conservative philosophy. Your denial is not a refutation.

    'The civil rights movement didn't get rolling until 9 white, hetero, anglo american men gave it a push with Brown v. Board of Education.'

    But those white men didn't move until they were pushed by the Civil Rights movement.

    'The illusion of continued institutional racism is maintained by the Liberal cultivation of victimhood, and white guilt.'

    Exactly wrong on all counts. Institutional racism is an economically measurable reality. We liberals do not cultivate victimhood; we aim to end it by ending victimization. The illusion of racism's nonexistence is carefully cultivated by conservatives who assume that if they don't believe they're racists, then they're not.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/20/2009 @ 2:15pm

94. Racism is on the rise in America. We not only have a racist as our Pres., now we've got a full-blown racist about to sit on the supreme ct. Truly very sad times for us all. There's very little chance for a colorblind society now!

    Posted by barry25 at 07/20/2009 @ 3:07pm

95. barry25-Of course,there is little chance that there will be a color-blind society.Most people,like yourself,keep mentioning race.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/20/2009 @ 4:10pm

96. 'Racism is on the rise in America.'

    No, "barry25," racism is not on the rise, though every time we advance in fighting racism, we do seem to hit a sort of plateau. There is also a predictable backlash, which at the extreme end includes an insane octogenarian Nazi who murders a Holocaust museum guard, and at the milder end includes rows of interchangeably ignorant white male senators who are all deeply offended that a judge might endorse Affirmative Action - even where it is established law - and that she might consider a "wise Latina" a positive contribution to our Supreme Court.

    It is actually NOT POSSIBLE for whites or males to be substantially threatened by Affirmative Action, properly applied. That millions of white males are shaking in their boots at the prospect that Affirmative Action may be preserved in places for a few decades more proves only the power of ignorance. It does not prove that Affirmative Action is dangerous, and it most certainly doesn't prove that our president or our newest justice on the Supreme Court is a racist.

    "Barry25's" accusation of racism demonstrates how shallow a conservative's understanding of racism can be. It confirms my suspicion that for many conservatives, racism consists only of "offensive remarks." It has nothing to do with being denied a job or an educational opportunity because white gatekeepers "don't feel comfortable" with you. It has nothing to do with inheriting a disproportionately small share of the country's usable wealth and struggling to keep it while others argue that you deserve your poverty and don't qualify for anything better, on the basis of zero evidence.

    No, to these conservatives, a dozen white, male senators are the victims of racism - because they were offended by the phrase "wise Latina."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/20/2009 @ 4:58pm

97. The following report demonstrates what racism REALLY is.

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/harvard.html

    I expect we'll hear more about it soon.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/20/2009 @ 6:47pm

98. First,I'm a libertarian so please don't mix me up with the warmongering,Zionazi party of Bush/Cheney. The writer of this must be kidding,she compares the Sotomayor interviews to the civil rights struggles,the only thing we're missing are photo's of police dogs nipping at her as she enters the Senate chamber. Could anyone of you lefties please explain to me why it's ok for a minority to belong to "LaRaza(the race),to show pride in their culture and race?. A White man or woman would never have even been selected to any court as a judge if they engaged in similar associations,in fact,they would be investigated, disbarred and seriously ridiculed-which is exactly what should have been done to this wise Latina if any of the dems had any consistency.

    Posted by dgl1962 at 07/20/2009 @ 7:03pm

99. I'm a libertarian and an Anti-Zionist Jew AND a non-Hispanic Latino. I hate identity politics, but I know how much Americans love them, so I include that information. I have no ethnic identification with her at all and her "wise Latina" remark is trivial.

    It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor is an OK selection for a Democratic president to make. She seemed to have the requisite experience and credentials and of those being considered she seemed like the closest to a civil libertarian in that she only sided with law-enforcement 80% of the time instead of Kagan, Sunnstein and Wood who were like 99%ers on the institution over the individual.

    Fine. OK. It doesn't affect me directly because I don't live in the US. But I think a lot of the stupidity could have been avoided if Obama had made it about selecting someone using the normal criteria. Instead, he did the crap he always does of making everything this GIANT ETHNIC THEME OF OVERCOMING ADVERSITY.

    Yuck.

    Posted by HebrewHePour at 07/20/2009 @ 8:19pm

100. Posted by JakobFabian at 07/20/2009 @ 2:15pm

     Wow. first you mischaracterize mainstream conservative thought, then you mischaracterize my words. What's next? Did I say I find diversity valueless? No. Did I say I found it dangerous? No. But your ability to read minds has discovered my deepest thoughts. I don't think I'm a racist, but I won't know for sure until you tell me.

     "'D is a simplistic statement that does not describe mainstream conservative philosophy.' Yes and no. Yes, it is a simplistic statement. No, you are wrong to say it doesn't describe mainstream conservative philosophy. Your denial is not a refutation."

     And your saying that it is mainstream political thought does not make it so. If it does, then by all means offer up your source to this wisdom. Or, is this just your opinion? Let me know, because you offered these up like they were settled facts.

     "But those white men didn't move until they were pushed by the Civil Rights movement."

     Hmmm. Which "Civil Rights movement are you referring to? The one that got rolling with Rosa Parks? Or MLK?

     "The illusion of racism's nonexistence is carefully cultivated by conservatives who assume that if they don't believe they're racists, then they're not."

     Wrong. The illusion of institutional racism is carefully cultivated by liberals and progressives, who assume that cultivating that illusion is a source of ever-increasing political power.

     Posted by twillie at 07/20/2009 @ 9:59pm

101. Nice writing. In my opinion this is quite a reach. Where it holds water is the senator's focus on irrationality hysteria = emotions over reason. Very classically patriarchal.

     Sessions got his Talking Points from New Republic's Professor Rosen who cherry-picked the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary.

     Anonymous paranoid white male lawyers wrote: "She's a terror on the bench," "she abuses lawyers," "she behaves in an out of control manner," and "She's nasty to lawyers".

     Sessiins fears are legit. Consider his own hero. Poster child for emotion over reason himself, DICK "go fuck yourself" to Senator Patrick Leahy, paranoid penguin, torture,rendition, wiretap CHENEY.

     Posted by winyahn at 07/20/2009 @ 11:02pm

102. Irak's...

     Posted by Frank42 at 07/19/2009 @ 10:57pm

     priceless

     Posted by winyahn at 07/20/2009 @ 11:04pm

103. The point of the attacks on Sotomayor was one thing-

     red meat to a demographically-dwindling (say that 5X fast) Republican base.

     End of story.

     Posted by Mask at 07/21/2009 @ 07:34am

104. methinks if someone disagrees with you it won't be the "end of story" for your commentary

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 07:50am

105. Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 07:50am

     How could they?

     The Hard Right/ditto-heads are the ONLY ones fired up for attacking Sotomayor...even their own beloved Rasmussen polls show that. Rush and Newt out there saying "Sotomayor is a racist"...while even hard-core conservatives like Sessions admits she's not, even though he says he's "troubled".

     When the vote happens, it's going to make them look even MORE marginalized...with only "safely Red State" GOP Senators voting against her.

     Posted by Mask at 07/21/2009 @ 07:57am

106. exhibit A immediately above

     Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 08:38am

107. Posted by urmygyro at 07/21/2009 @ 08:38am

     YOU are disagreeing, urmy? On what basis?

     Posted by Mask at 07/21/2009 @ 09:17am

108. She "definitely" considers a "wise Latina" to make better decisions than a white male! If that's not racist, then the dictionary's definition needs to be revised! Truly ignorant and pathetic! How do you people keep jobs?

     Posted by barry25 at 07/21/2009 @ 12:42pm

109. Posted by barry25 at 07/21/2009 @ 12:42pm

     Barry, nobody cares what you think...not even a lot of Senate REPUBLICANS.

     Posted by Mask at 07/21/2009 @ 1:30pm

110. that's because they fear the politics of race. They fear the racists on the left. They know that the racists on the left will use sotomayer's "latina" status as a race-card against them if they vote against her. Too bad the repub's weren't allowed to do that with miguel estrada. The Dem's surely could have put a "non-racist" of color up for the highest court of the land, but they chose not to. I will continue to inform anyone and everyone that i cross paths with about the racism of the left. People are already shocked when i show them her statements. She's a bonafide racist and an embarrassment to our judicial system and academia (although she represents the views of many cradle-to-gravers in academia. She's an embarrassment to all those who fought for civil rights and who strive for a "colorblind' society. A "colorblind' society is the LAST thing she or Obama want to see!

     Posted by barry25 at 07/21/2009 @ 9:20pm

111. Don't fall into the paradigm of being defined by the right, for the devil is a liar and a cheat. That is what I see on the right -- a cult of devils. Supremacists are inherently delusional. They generally have no empathy or compassion and seek to entertain themselves by oppressing others. It's a deep, psychological pathology. I honestly think it comes from previous clans inbreeding. Some may find that controversial, but it explains quite a bit. I remember going to school with a few families of a dubious distinction. These people, in order to keep black people out of their clan, would mate with their own cousins. We called them we-sorts as in, we sort of people are different than you sorts. As a result of this inbreeding, they had obvious, genetic flaws such as albinism, rotting teeth at and early age, and eyes that fluttered and darted rapidly. Some were quite attractive, however, though their teeth were smallish. The closer, however, that you got to the ones with the more corrupt genetics, the more hostile and paranoid they were.

     Is this what we're looking at when we look deep into the majority of the Republican party? This is not to say that they're not in the Democratic party. I feel they are everywhere. Now, those I described above couldn't necessarily pass for white. They looked more like Puerto Rican, or a mixture of Creole. But, deep in the Ozarks, I'll bet some inbreeding was going on in the past. This occurred all over the world.

     So, my theory is that it's these inbred, genetically challenged breeds that constitute the nucleus of the white supremacists and their obsession with "purity". They carry out this sickness by discriminating on whoever they think is not one of them. It's irrational, but they can't seem to help themselves. Scary

     Posted by Opinionated at 07/22/2009 @ 03:40am

112. Beware of the Republicans . They are acting like desperate animals backed into a corner. They're losing their grip on reality and it makes them extremely dangerous. They are capable of more acts like 9/11. I'm convinced that was controlled demolition. Treason. Right wingers would attack me and claim I'm a nut, but they've been duped into a victim syndrome. They so want to believe someone is trying to take something from them. They actually believe two skyscrapers turn to complete dust from jet fuel. Tons of concrete and steel melt from jet fuel?! All in one hour? Tower 7 was "pulled", obviously controlled, and sunk into the earth ( a 47 story bldg.) like an elevator 7 hours later from a few fires?. If they can be fooled by that inside, military operation, they will fall for anything the right instigates. Paranoid that people of color are trying to take over, you have a volatile mix of mob mentality and stupidity.

     It's so easy to fool them into going along with government sponsored terrorism because they've already received a hypnotic suggestion that Arab terrorists are plotting against them. If they think Homeland security was created to help them rid the world of people of color, they'll line up behind anything the neo-right wing commands them to do. Supremacy fuels them.

     It's like a dark magic spell politicians, controlled by the banking mafia, have cast upon them. These forces blind them under a strong hypnotic spell and use their hate against them. That's why they are so dangerous if they feel threatened. Sotomayor frightens them because she said a "Wise Latina" was capable of applying a logic superior to a white man. They try to humiliate her and make her bow to them, like Nazis do. Evil, absurd, delusional, and extremely dangerous.

     Posted by Opinionated at 07/22/2009 @ 04:36am

113. 'Hmmm. Which "Civil Rights movement are you referring to? The one that got rolling with Rosa Parks? Or MLK?'

     The one that got rolling with W. E. B. DuBois, the NAACP, and Thurgood Marshall.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 07/22/2009 @ 09:14am

114. Posted by barry25 at 07/21/2009 @ 9:20pm

     No, that's because they DON'T fear ....guys like you.

     You aren't going anywhere come 2010, 2012, are you? They can afford to ignore you.

     Posted by Mask at 07/22/2009 @ 09:45am

115. A similar tarring and feathering was sprayed on Clarence "Uncle Tom" Thomas. I never believed Thomas was going to do anything to advance black people. He is completely selfish , prideful and narcissistic. He's like Roland Burris in Chicago. Though the office is tainted, he still covets it so much, he wants it anyway. I guess one mans turd is another mans treasure.

     Even though Uncle Clarence gets a public golden shower, he ultimately ends up being content and comfortable as Scalia's bitch (for lack of a better word). He will never rule on anything beneficial to black people or Scalia and Cheney might invite him on one of their "hunting" trips. I'm not sure what Sotomayor will mean for blacks as well. Nor do I have a sense of whether or not she will submit to Scalias dominance and submission tactics. I questioned why Obama selected her. I feel he panders more to Latinos then blacks. He preaches to the NAACP about self responsibility. He acknowledges black plight, and though he's appointed several blacks to his administration, he's done absolutely nothing, IMHO, to stem the tide of devastation wreaking havoc on increasing numbers of black people.

     There is some truth to the reality that Democrats know that blacks are stuck with the Democratic Party and have no choice but to vote that way. Thus, they can use blacks to win elections, then discard them. With the Latinos, it's different. Their increasing numbers put them in a position of power as a voting block necessary for Democratic success. The result is that black people are given lip service, sermons, platitudes like "Yes we Can", and then cast aside until the next time.

     So Obama selects Sotomayor rather than a qualified black woman. After all, aren't black people supposed to have representation in

     Posted by Opinionated at 07/22/2009 @ 3:53pm

116. (got cut off - continued from above)

     So Obama selects Sotomayor rather than a qualified black woman. After all, aren't black people supposed to have representation in Uncle Clarence?

     Posted by Opinionated at 07/22/2009 @ 3:55pm

117. Posted by Opinionated at 07/22/2009 @ 3:53pm Posted by Opinionated at 07/22/2009 @ 3:55pm

     I vote "poser".

     Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 08:16am

118. Posted by Opinionated at 07/22/2009 @ 3:55pm I vote "poser". Posted by Mask at 07/23/2009 @ 08:16am

     Poser?

     Poser, as in you think I'm right wing posing as progressive?

     Poser, as in you think I'm white posing as black?

     Poser, as in you think I'm barry25?

     Poser, as if you think you're the only one with brains enough to express a valid thought?

     I found this response apparently referencing you earlier and found it enlightening:

     "I will have to qualify my statement up above.....because I am sure Mask is prowling the blog and will post in with some kind of comment."

     Oh? Now I get it. Self appointed Blog Police. Do you carry a gun, or just a flashlight? Perhaps you've been accused of false arrest before, hmmm? Profiling perhaps?

     But, just in case, I think I'm as livid as you are about the right wing and their ignorant racism and destructive policies. I also don't completely trust the motives of the left wing. They both practice an insidious, duplicitous agenda that benefits an international banking mafia that manipulates and controls everything it owns, especially the government and media. And, truthfully, too many of the former Bush administration policies are being continued and protected under the Obama administration. What's up with that?

     ......posing....

     Posted by Opinionated at 07/23/2009 @ 6:10pm