Rachel Maddow brilliantly highlights GOP's racism on display at Sotomayor hearing

[ProfessorPlum]

Run time: 09:09 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXNh7fYg1JE   Posted on YouTube: July 15, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: July 15, 2009 By DU Member: ProfessorPlum Views on DU: 2731

 

[pedo]

1. "that's sooo john roberts!"

lol

[TommyPaine]

2. Mr. Sessions, you're a disgrace to humanity. (nt)

[svpadgham]

3. You know what Sotomayor did wrong?

She said when making a judgment she looks at the facts and applies the judgment to the facts. We all know how the GOP feels about those pesky facts. Tsk ,tsk.

[Wizard777]

4. That's not entirely true. If you are referring to the speech.

What she said is because of her experiences. Those experiences can be outside of the facts before. If those personal experiences create strong feelings or emotions. Then a Judge must recuse themselves from that case to avoid even the appearance of bias. I think cases are best decided on logic and rationale. I don't think you have to be a victim of discrimination to know it's wrong.

[Wizard777]

5. I think it's disingenuous to call Sessions out on his racism while giving Sotomayor a pass on hers.

I think "racism" has just become a sound byte political buzz word and cliche' that has lost all meaning. I have yet to decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

[ProfessorPlum]

6. Yes, Sotomayor's scary "racism".

[Wizard777]

7. Racism from Supreme Court Justices is always scary.

As far as I'm concerned. If she would just call a spade a spade. This would be over with. If she just said, Look this was private speech. There is a perceivable tinge of racism and sexism in it. But this wasn't part of my public duty. I didn't vet that speech as closely as I do my legal decisions. I think my Judicial record shows I'm able to keep the two separate. This would be over and it would be a non issue. The whole thing could just move forward. But her dancing around the flames just gives people more reason to add fuel to fire.

As far as her comment goes. It wasn't all that long ago that companies were refusing to hire minorities for some positions because they felt the life experiences of white males allowed them to make better business decisions. I see no difference in the two positions. As for the Ricci case. I don't think Sotomayor considered the equality of all the litigants. It appears that she used the whites as a standard to which minorities must be made equal to. Further more, with each passing year whites come closer and closer to becoming a minority in this country. So what happens to the white measuring stick when whites become a minority? I think that also makes it important for a Justice to able to perceive a white person as a victim of discrimination instead of the measuring stick disparity is judged by. Because in the coming years. I think the courts will see more claims of discrimination coming from whites as they achieve minority status.

[EFerrari]

10. If you don't understand that minority women may have better insight

into discrimination cases, that's a problem you have, not a problem Judge Sotomayor has.

[Wizard777]

15. It's not just me. It's also the current Justices that says she doesn't.

You know at least people arguing to call her racism and sexism exactly what it is offer in depth explanations of their position. It's not denial or you just don't understand. We can actually expose mechanism of racism in her position. Would you favor legislation that would prohibit white males from hearing discrimination cases because they are lacking insight and are wholly unqualified because of their race and sex?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. Which "current justices"?

[Wizard777]

19. All the ones that voted against her Ricci decision.

Apparently her race and sex doesn't give her the magical insight she thinks it does.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

20. Alito said at his hearing that his Italian background shapes his decisions on discrimination cases.

Since he said this, do you believe he should have removed himself from the Ricci case? Or is his claim of insight via his Italian heritage different from Sotomayors claim that her heritage gives her a different insight on cases?

[Wizard777]

21. Unlike Sotomayor he didn't say his experience or background allows him to make "better" decisions -

than another ethnic or minority group. The kernel of her statement is that she is better able to make decision in discrimination cases than white males. Basically it's a Latina thing we can't possibly understand. So by extension she's also saying that in the area of discrimination white males are legally insane. We're incapable of knowing right from wrong in this area of law. We need a "wise Latina" to break it down for us. So the courts also cannot hold us criminally or civilly liable for these things we can't possibly understand. The courts universally hold that to be cruel and unusual punishment.

So the statements aren't the same in nature. Her statement is more in line with white business owners that used to think the life experience of white males allowed them to make better business decisions than minorities. But they were sued for discrimination to the point this is no longer a social mos. Now Sotomayor wants to throw that reasoning into reverse to establish a social mos that says, minorities are able to make better legal decisions on civil rights than white males. It's none the less racist and discriminatory. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination. Racism is ugly regardless of the direction it's traveling in.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. They were both saying the same thing: that their experiences with discrimination will affect the

way they judge for the better. Her statement is NOTHING like your example. How you can even compare the statement of someone who was privileged (a white business owner was it?) and making the case they could decide for the underprivileged and the statement of someone who was most definitely NOT privileged making the case they could decide better for the underprivileged based on their experience as a member of said underprivileged group is amazing.

[Wizard777]

24. No they weren't the same. Alito simply said he uses his experience to FORM his decision.

He never assigned a value to the experience or the decision rendered from it. Sotomayor did exactly that. She said hers were "better." You show me exactly where Alito said his decisions were better. He never said that. He approached the line. But he didn't cross it like Sotomayor did.

I also won't address your ridiculous racist rant trying to justify and enforce the white male stereotype. That we're all powerful, always wealthy and specially privileged people. That we can walk into a bank and when there are no minorities around. The tellers start passing out the huge stacks of free to white males only money. Then we sip champagne, eat caviar, and light 50.00 cigars with 100.00 bills as we laugh at all the poor powerless minorities that actually have to work for their money. Believe it or not. The welfare roles are not limited to minorities only. Social Services offices don't have signs on the front door saying, No white males allowed. White males should report to the nearest bank instead for your huge pile of free to white males only money. Your assertion just don't survive contact with reality. I think that is due to you confusing how it WAS with how it IS.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. I repeated the example that YOU provided.

You used the example "white business owner" who told minorities what was best for them. I assumed you would at least agree that this person would be in a place of privilege. If you do not agree that a white business owner who could get away with telling minorities what to do prior to a SC ruling is *not* privileged, then my mistake.

Again, I reiterate. There is a big difference between your example (a white business owner-presumably a person of privilege-telling minorities how to feel) and an underprivileged person hoping that their experiences will shape them positively in dealing with other underprivileged people. It is painfully obvious what Sotomayor meant. She has explained this several times.

How you somehow extract "RACIST RANT!!!" from this is, again, amazing.

[Wizard777]

32. No I said it would be considered racist coming from a white business owner.

So I'll repeat it one more time. If a white business says, I think the life experiences of the wise white male allow him to make better business decisions than the Latina. This is Sotomayor's statement with the racial roles reversed and it applied to the business profession instead of the judicial profession. This guy would be sued for racism especially if you could establish an impact, like the Ricci case, in his hiring or promotional practices. If it's wrong for him to say this about other in his business profession. Then it is equally racist and wrong for Sotomayor to say this about others in the judicial profession. When you assign a value, be it increased or diminished, on their worth or self worth based on their race. You are being racist. That is exactly what she did in the comment. She increased the value of her decision above that of the white males which diminished the value of his in comparison.

But hey maybe that white business owner wasn't really disparaging the Latina. Maybe he was actually just encouraging the white to try to do better in life. I'm still not buying it. Also, do white males have to shoot themselves in the foot or be otherwise hobbled to ensure the minorities can catch up in the race race? Do white males have a right to an equal opportunity to do the best job they possibly can? Does a minority have to fail for a white male to succeed? Can't life be geared to present win/win situations?

[EFerrari]

44. Your problem is you don't know the difference between racism

and calling out racism.

And, pssssssssst, this not a situation where reciprocity is even possible. You betray your mindset by suggesting such a thing.

[Wizard777]

45. Sure I know the difference. Sotomayor was not calling out racism. She was using racism.

What you and Sotomayor do not understand. Equality is not about making minorities equal to or "better" white males. It's about making everyone, including the white male, equal under the law. What makes the great white measuring stick a fallacy is that it puts whites in a place that should be occupied by the law. Then you wonder why whites are perceived as Supreme and all powerful. That because some people like Sotomayor and you try to place whites in a position that should only be occupied by our supreme laws. Equality is not about making people equal to whitey. It's about making all people equal under the law.

[Number23]

37. Sotomayor never said that either

But why do I get the feeling that you already know this?

[Wizard777]

39. Oh yes she did. She said "better."

[EFerrari]

31. You can't possibly be arguing that minority women don't experience

discrimination more often than white men. And your ridiculous expansions have nothing to do with that, which is what she said.

Apparently, when minority women talk about their experience explicitly, that's racism and sexism. Hilarious.

[Wizard777]

35. No I'm simply saying you don't have to be a victim of discrimination to know it's wrong -

or understand why it's wrong. It's every bit as ridiculous as saying this. I understand she's "under privileged" as so many here claim. So when it comes to deliberations concerning the privileges of the federal government and those reserved to the states and the people. She should recuse herself on these cases. Because being so miserably under privileged as all minorities are as so many here claim. She has no practical experience with privilege. So she can't possibly know what is and is not proper in the exercise of privilege. I'm not buying that either. But that is what she's saying about Civil Rights. Being a victim of discrimination allows you to make a "better" decision that someone who has not. I will not dispute that they have a greater vested interest in the decision. That's not always conducive to the impartial decisions we expect of Judges. When you get into the area of ethics. These personal experiences and dealings cease to be an asset and actually become a handicap to impartiality.

Believe me I've looked it from every possible angle. There is no angle from which it doesn't appear to be racist and sexist. Ar best it's benignly racist and sexist. But racist and sexist none the less. My consideration of the issue goes far deeper and far beyond than saying. I'm not a racist and if you don't agree with me you are a racist. I'm not that shallow or low brow. Would you like me to reduce her statement to to it's mathematical values to help you better understand exactly why it's racist? I can and will do the math on it.

[EFerrari]

36. She never said you have to be a victim to know discrimination is wrong.

She said the experience of discrimination can lead to better decisions in those cases. Go back and read what she said. It's very, very careful.

[Wizard777]

38. So basically she's saying you have to be a victim of discrimination to better understand it.

That's simply untrue.

[EFerrari]

40. LOL. She's saying something so obvious it's painful

Life experience helps on the job. :wow:

[Wizard777]

41. It's not painfully obvious to Sotomayor. She's contradicted that.

She agreed with one of the Senators on his definition of activism. Which included making decisions from life experiences. That can be a benefit in some professions. But when you're a Judge it becomes a detriment to your impartiality. A judge can only consider the facts before them. Their life experiences can be outside of those facts. Life experience doesn't always serve a person well. One of my God Children managed a convenience store. He hired a woman to work the evening shift. She was alone on this shift. Her life experience lead her to push the robbery alarm button every time a black man walked through the door. She had some really bad experience in life with black men victimizing her. In her mind her actions were absolutely justified. She was probably suffering from PTSD. That wasn't an officially accepted disorder by the AMA at the time. A lot of doctors were calling it a phony disorder based on specious science. Kinda like Global warming now. But this woman didn't last 3 hours. Because after he got back home. The phone was ringing. It was the alarm company with another robbery alarm. So he had to fire her. The police wrote them a 50.00 ticket for a second False Alarm. They told him if have to come back. The next ticket would be 100.00 and she will be arrested. Now if you were an accused black man. How would you feel with this woman on the bench adjudicating from her "personal experience?" Especially her bad or negative personal experiences. Guilty! But your Honor we haven't even begun opening argument. It doesn't matter! Just look at him. My personal experience says he's guilty! I also don't think that being a victim of racism and discrimination is a particularly positive personal experience. Therefore it should not be brought into a deliberation. Also how would you vet every last one of these personal experiences they might use? It's best to stick with the facts and the logic and rationale they produce regardless of the judges personal experience.

[EFerrari]

42. It's not plain to you. There is no judge that doesn't bring their experience to the bench.

And Sotomayor also didn't say she would adjudicate based on subjective personal experience.

[Wizard777]

46. There is no judge that doesn't bring their LEGAL experience to the bench.

Actually she did say exactly that in so many words. She said it was her life experience, not her legal or judicial experience, that allows her to make better decisions on discrimination than a white male. So in a prosecutorial sense. I would take as a confession that she uses her life or personal experiences in her adjudications.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

13. Really. What do you think about the NAACP?

[Wizard777]

14. I think they need to be doing more to fight racism in communities of color.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. Do you think the NAACP is discriminatory towards white Americans?

[Wizard777]

18. As a former member I have to honestly say, Only in their top ranks.

Especially in the national organization.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. I think it is disingenuous and bigoted to describe Sotomayer's statement as racist

Simply expressing a hope that a Latina woman would have a certain degree of special insight is hardly racist - and I frankly find implying that reflects a somewhat racist although perhaps naively racist understanding of society.

White men in American society operate from a position of power - changes in demographics may have the white population at only around a mere 70% of the population - but that does not change the essential power dynamics in which non-whites simply do not hold the same degree of influence.

This is not remotely comparable to someone saying that white people have a special insight - given that power is overwhelming in the hands of white people. The insight of white men is the long established status quo and it is hardly under threat. That is absurd and the line of questioning from Sessions and others reflects a centuries old racist paranoia about the white man losing their power.

The hope that the input of nonwhites will bring more of their life experience into the ruling process is one of the core values that unites all progressives of all stripes together. No doubt there are cases where affirmative action has been misapplied, but the suggestions that "the white man" is now the victim in the over all dynamics of how a white dominated society operates are ridiculous - This is the kind of reactionary xenophobia that causes racial strife and strengthens the hands of the most reactionary elements of society.

It is a basic progressive-democratic principle that recognizes that all branches of government should look like the America they represent where a consensus can arise from all the special insights of all life experiences. Latina women along with many others still have to strive for this. White men have had this for centuries.

Besides Judge Sotomayer has a long record as a centrist judge. Her opinions on affirmative action reflect the upholding of judicial precedence. This nonsense Sessions is trying to cook up is simply a crass attempt at playing the race card to deflect from her mainstream and centrist record - given that they have little or nothing else to use for attack. This is the centuries old, "the white man is under siege" fear tactic.

[Wizard777]

22. Ah the great white measuring stick theory.

Later you'll probably be resentful that society still makes minorities measure up to the whites. I think both you and Sotomayor focus on the wee tiny cogs and wheels of racism and discrimination to the point you become myopic to the greater equal rights machine that manufactures freedom and liberty for all.......even whites. Equal rights is not about who's life experiences make them "better" than whom. It's about people being equal regardless of their racial, religious, sexual, or socioeconomic position in life. I think her statement spits in the face of the intent of the entire body of civil rights law. The over all intent is not to see people as greater or less then. But to see them as equal.

Also Sotomayor was expressing a discriminatory thought process. Where she was seeing herself as being different than a white judge and assigning value to the difference. She was "better." She was exercising discrimination (seeing things as being different in comparison). She wasn't making an analogy (seeing things as being similar or the same in comparison.) So her statement can't be anything but discriminatory and therefore bigoted. It flies in the face of the spirit of equal rights.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. of for crying out loud

First of all Judge Sotomayer has a long judicial record of upholding judicial precedence well within the mainstream, if not moderately conservative mainstream, without a shred of evidence to support the claims made against her. Out of 96 cases Judge Sotomayer ruled on concerning charges of racial discrimination against nonwhites, Judge Sotomayer rejected the claims 78 times. If anything Judge Sotomayer's record is closer to what one would expect from a moderately conservative judge. The Republicans do not want to focus on that, because it shoots their whole argument completely out of the water.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in what Judge Sotomayer said that could possibly be interpreted as racist except from someone who themselves are at least somewhat racist or at least deeply defensive - those who see the white race as under threat, itself an absurd and racist notion propagated once only by the likes of the Ku Klux Klan, but now popular within mainstream Republican Party circles.

Judge Sotomayer was speaking to a group of people who she was attempting to inspire to strive. It is simple reality to recognize the value of the contribution of a diverse group of people. It is simple reality and a positive reality to recognize the potential positive contribution of Latina women.

This is the kind of argument that would describe having an African-American History month as racist. Again, we have "the white man is under siege" argument.

This is crass sophistry in its crudest form.

[Wizard777]

26. So did Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice Hugo Black.

Both were members of the KKK. Does the upholding of judicial precedence make them any less a racist in their personal views and private lives? Unlike in Sotomayor's case. The Canons of the Judicial Code of Conduct, to make what is and is not acceptable behaviour by a Judge more clear, did not yet exist in their time. Sotomayor has no excuse for not knowing this. Judge can only be policed by themselves and other Judges. The Canons State that even in their private lives Judges must avoid even the appearance of impartiality. Her statement appears to be partial to Latina's. Maybe it's just the blatant admission the life experience afforded by race and sex make them "better" in a Professional Capacity. Anyone else would be sued for that Prima Facie. No one would really care why they said it and what they were trying accomplish by saying it. But lets just assume that there are positive uses of racism. How does that statement inspire white males in the audience to strive? There were white males in the audience? Racists usually do feel comfortable and emboldened to spew their racist beliefs when they aren't in "mixed company." Why tell the racially skewed crowd they could be equally as good as white males. They could make decision every bit as good any decision made by white males. That wouldn't be a problem for her even with white males in the audience. Why did she try to inspire them to strive to be "better" than another sex and ethnicity? I don't think Latina supremacy is going to work out any better than white supremacy. They are EQUALLY wrong. You don't overcome racism and discrimination by making people "better' than others. You do it by making them equal and making them whole. Even if that is an improvement in their life. It doesn't make them "better" than anyone else. It simply makes them equal and whole.

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. Judge Sotomayer says that she used a bad choice of words

Sen. Specter of Pennsylvania described the whole, "wise Latina affair" as "making a mountain out of a mole hill".

I think pretty much everybody knows what Judge Sotomayer meant. Anyone from a minority background expressing hope that those from similar backgrounds would excel and be a bit more prudent in their decisions is hardly a declaration of racial superiority. Everyone knows this is a silly and utterly disingenuous diversion tactic. Everybody knows this is crude attempt at playing the race care by appealing to white fears about peoples of color "taking over".

Judge Sotomayer's response to the "issue":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x337842

[Wizard777]

29. Just wait until her poor choice of words begin to bear the force of law.

I guess we won't expect her to establish any bright lines on what is and is not racism in consideration of the professional capacity of others. I can hardly wait to see the lawyers emerging from the Supreme Court saying, as always never mind what Sotomayor ACTUALLY said. We think we know what she really MEANT to say. Her opinion was not really a dissent. It was a concurrence and we won instead of losing. Once you translate her poor choice of words into what she really meant to say. :eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. do you believe the white race is under siege and is in danger of becoming a persecuted minority in t...

United States?

Perhaps that is not what you think at all. But it is hard for me to imagine interpreting Judge Sotomayer's words the way you and the right-wing Republicans seem to be interpreting them unless that is the angle from which one is coming.

[Wizard777]

34. No not at all. I simply know racism when I see it. Racism coming from a minority doesn't confuse me.

Not one bit. I tend to look beyond the actual words to the mechanisms they establish. I can even reduce the intent of the statement to math. What she was trying to establish is this formula on the value of legal decisions by Judges. Latina > White male and therefore White male < Latina. What she should have been trying to establish is Latina = white male and therefore White male = Latina. Assigning greater or lesser values based on race is a mechanism of racism. Establishing the equality of the races is not. Do the math. It's really that simple.

[EFerrari]

43. Except she wasn't talking about race, she was talking about experience.

Maybe when Sotomayor talks, you HEAR race, but that is your misfortune.

[Wizard777]

47. That's psychotic. The racial terms "Latina" and "white male" were her choice of words.

So yes she was talking about race. You also cannot create a sentence that includes the political terms Democrat and Republican and not be discussing politics. What I find disturbing is that not only did she use/abuse white males as a measuring stick instead of the law. She said her experiences as a Latina made her decision "better" than theirs. She placed herself above them. Not equal to them as provided for by our Constitution and the laws it provides for. I also understand the motivational aspects of her speech. It would have been more proper, both socially and legally, for her to say that Latina can make decision every bit as good or equally as good as any white male. That eliminates disparity. It does not create a new disparity. You don't eliminate discrimination with reverse discrimination. That only increases the over all amount of discrimination in society. Just as you cannot eliminate war by declaring war on war. Once you wipe out all the other wars. You still have the war of the war on war. You eliminate war by creating Peace and you eliminate discrimination by creating Equality. In equality white males are not better than anyone else and a Latina isn't better than anyone else.

What further baffles me is her nomination by Obama. Because even if I were the only white man in the room when he made his NAACP speech. Never and at anytime would I have felt disparaged, uncomfortable, or unwelcome. In this speech Obama lifted everyone up and he didn't have to put anyone down to do it. He simply established that racism and discrimination is beneath us all. We are all better than that. Racism and discrimination is a depth you sink to. Not a height you aspire to. I agree with Obama that discrimination cannot stand. I just wish he wouldn't give it a chance to SIT upon the Supreme Court. When discrimination cannot stand or sit. I guess that will leave this meme no other choice than to lay down and die. That will be a beautiful day for people.

[Wizard777]

48. Now it's my turn. Do you believe minorities can discriminate against white males?

Is it even possible?

[kwolf68]

8. Good lord

Sessions is a damn idiot. No wonder that party is circling the drain.

[Apollo11]

11. Rachel is ON FIRE!

Don't forget folks - you can watch the Rachel Maddow show online: http://maddow.msnbc.com

This is 100% legal and high-quality video. Sometimes you will see a 30-second commercial.

The best part is letting MSNBC know that Rachel Maddow is bringing traffic to their website.

You can also watch Rachel's latest report on the Sotomayor hearings from Wednesday night's show.

Here is the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31931397

:kick:

I know it's irrelevant - but I am not the only straight guy who "hearts" Rachel! ;-)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. Rachel is having "uncle" Pat on tomorrow. I hope she kicks the shit out of him.

[JayMusgrove]

30. That would be an ugly image! I will mute it while Pat B is on...

I can't stand that man!