From the "People in Glass Houses" files: Tancredo says Sotomayor appears to be a racist....

[marmar]

:wow: He's got a pair.



from ThinkProgress:



Tancredo: Sotomayor ‘Appears To Be A Racist’

Last night on MSNBC, former Republican House member Tom Tancredo declared that Judge Sonia Sotomayor “appears to be a racist” and indicated she would only be confirmed because she’s a Hispanic woman:

TANCREDO: I’m telling you she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context. That’s exactly how we would portray it and there’s no one who would get on the Supreme Court saying a thing like that except for a Hispanic woman and you’re going to say it doesn’t matter!

Tancredo also called Sotomayor “a radical” — though he admitted he doesn’t “know anything about the cases…she’s reviews.” He complained that since “she is a Hispanic woman,” “therefore we can’t say things like this.” Watch a compilation: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/27/tancredo-sotomayor-racist/


Remember, Tancredo is the lawmaker who called Miami a “third world country” because of the number of Latinos there, criticized presidential candidates for “pandering” by participating in a Spanish-language debate, and accused immigrants of “pushing drugs, raping kids, and destroying lives.” He said the issue of immigration is “whether we will survive.”

......

Update: Yesterday, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh called Sotomayor a "reverse racist


http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/27/tancredo-sotomayor-racist/

[pnutbutr]

1. to be honest

I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.

[Richard Steele]

2. Huh?

[pnutbutr]

8. it is a quote from Sotomayor

just swap white man and Latino woman in what I wrote and you have her original quote. I did it to show the ridiculousness of what she said. It seems to work extremely well when those who have not seen her original quote read it.

[EFerrari]

9. You're taking her words out of context just like Rush did.

Congratulations!

[pnutbutr]

10. correct me

what is the proper context in which to present that sentence in it's entirety?

[EFerrari]

11. The context was a conversation with a group of young women of color

on bringing their own experience to bear to discrimination cases. You know, bringing all your experience to bear -- a concept taught in every Logic 1A class?

[pnutbutr]

12. oh

so women of color have insight into discrimination cases that white men don't have despite the fact that the law is the law and justice is blind. Sounds like she is trying to use race as a positive in determining certain type of cases which IMO is a negative as it exposes the possibility of ruling not based on law.

Still doesn't change what she said and that if spoken in the way I posted it would earn the speaker a one way ticket out of town.

[marmar]

13. Mon dieu, redux.....

:eyes: :eyes:

[pnutbutr]

14. maybe you would like to comment instead of

speaking to god

[marmar]

16. Your commentary leads me to think, "Why bother?"

n/t

[pnutbutr]

19. your lack of commentary leads me to think,

you don't know how to dispute my commentary.

[marmar]

23. If you really believe justice is blind, there is no point in debating this with you.....

..... You can't make people see what they don't want to see.

[pnutbutr]

26. cool

another insinuation of me being a bigot.

[marmar]

29. I'm not insinuating that you're a bigot........just that you fail to see....

.... the inequities in our Justice system.

[pnutbutr]

33. primarily financial inequality, same as everything else in the country n/t

[AllieB]

63. A search will reveal a pattern.

;-)

[pnutbutr]

68. I'm a neocon

I know. It's easy to label me that way. Many do it while refusing to try and understand the point I am making or to look deeply at themselves and their own feelings and actions regarding the matter being discussed. Democrats paint me Republican and Republicans paint me Democrat. Neither wants to truly understand my points because they fit nobody's agenda.

[AllieB]

70. What principles of the Democratic platform do you agree with?

[pnutbutr]

71. pretty much everything

with exceptions. It's those exceptions that get me in trouble. Sometimes I just have a completely different way of looking at the issues which gets me in trouble also. I'm pretty strict with the constitution and original intent. One thing that really gets me in trouble is being very supportive of increased states rights and limited federal government but I think that goes along with my constitution and original intent views. On the original intent part. I'm not saying we need to live like it's 1776 but the constitution's core principles are sound even to this day. States should have power to decide important issues for themselves while the federal government needs only to maintain unity of the states, hence, United States. There is no need for swishy interpretation by the supreme court when we can amend the constitution as we have many times to address the changes in society. Take Roe v. Wade. I fully support the right to choose but would never recommend an abortion. I also believe this should be an issue for each state to determine. The supreme court IMO should have made that determination instead of what it did. We would not have the problems we have today regarding it.

[EFerrari]

15. Rush, is that you? Everyone brings their experience with them

to their profession. Are you saying women of color shouldn't? Why is that?

[pnutbutr]

18. Experience is fine

but in the context provided it points toward someone of color or a "...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." I just don't see how that is possible unless you intend to reach outside the law or intend to mangle the constitution in your rulings.

[EFerrari]

20. Why would the experience of women of color be unruly?

[pnutbutr]

21. now you are

trying to change the discussion to divert attention away from what she said and it's implications and onto trying to make me out to be a bigot.

[EFerrari]

24. No. I'm staying exactly with what she said.

She told those young women that their experience would be helpful to them in their profession. It's a universal commonplace that is said to groups of college students by their mentors.

What was she supposed to say, "As young women of color, as Latinas, your personal experience of belonging to a minority group is worthless and you should do your best to learn to see the world through the eyes of white men"?

[pnutbutr]

30. no need to mention or compare yourself to another race at all

Doing so exposes your racial views. The comment cannot be justified away as easily as you are trying to make it. If a white male had said what I posted initially you and others would be in here jumping all over the place about him being a racist bigot no matter what the context. I'm not calling Sotomayor a racist, I'm pointing out her racial views may be a liability as a supreme court justice.

[EFerrari]

34. So, Sotomayor should not mention her Latina heritage because that's "racial"?

What a strange idea.

And what you posted at first makes no sense whatsoever. People who have been in a minority -- gender, ethnicity, racial, gay, disabled, left handed, vegetarian, red headed -- have the experience of being in a minority to inform their understanding of other people in that position. That's just common sense. It's not "racial" in the least.

[pnutbutr]

35. That's not what I said

and you know it. Further attempt to make me out as a bigot.

People all have different experiences, I never disputed that. Each person brings their individual life experiences to the table and they help shape that individual into who they are. It's not racial. What's racial is her comparison of Latina women to white men as shown by my simply reversing white men and Latina women in her quote.

[EFerrari]

37. It's precisely what you said: no need to mention or compare yourself to another race at all

The example of minority she used was a cultural one (Latina isn't a race, btw, it's an ethnicity). And it's only one of many possible minorities one can belong to in our country.

What she said was that her own experience of diversity gave her an insight that someone who doesn't belong to a minority doesn't have. That's a true statement, not a racist one, just as havng been poor enables you to understand other people who have struggled with poverty. That's not a classist statement, that's a true statement.

[pnutbutr]

38. to another race

There was no need to mention white men. :eyes: She could have made her point without it.

Is this a racist statement?
I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
Is it a true statement?

[EFerrari]

41. There is nothing wrong with her comparison.

She wasn't denigrating white men, she was pointing out a difference in experience. You do know that white men's experience is different than a Latina's would be, right?

And, no, your statement in that context is not true. It's like saying a right handed person could use left handed scissors as easily as a left handed person. It's not only not true, it makes no sense whatsoever. It's not a racist statement, it's just nonsense.

[pnutbutr]

44. nice cop out

I think I'm done here. You have tried the make me look like a bigot route and now are at the I'm not gonna answer your valid questions because they are nonsense stage.

[EFerrari]

45. I answered your question(s) precisely. That you don't like the answer is your problem.

[pnutbutr]

47. :rofl:

calling them nonsense is answering precisely? :rofl:

[EFerrari]

48. Very precisely. There is no reason a white man should have

experience understanding a minority experience. It's nonsense.

[pnutbutr]

51. because a white man can never be a minority :eyes:

Take a look at some of the schools in D.C. or other cities where there is a very pronounced white minority in them.

and these are the questions I was referring to. Stop dancing and stay focused.

Is this a racist statement?
I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.
Is it a true statement?

[EFerrari]

53. No, white men in America are not a minority.

A white man or some white men may belong to other minorities but white men are not a minority.

And, see my response above. Your reiteration makes no sense whatsoever.

I think the problem you're having is that you believe "white men" and "Latinas" can simply be changed out in a sentence without changing the logic or meaning as if there is no difference other than the words. That indicates that you don't understand what being a minority in America really means or, alternately, that you aren't interested. No wonder you don't understand what she's saying and no wonder it seems to threaten you.

[pnutbutr]

65. Maybe it shows that

I don't give a flying f about race or ethnicity or gender or anything else which is why that statement from a SCOTUS nominee is so frustrating. White men can most certainly be a minority, in fact anyone can be a minority depending on their surroundings.

I have learned a lot about you in this discussion. You are not someone who believes in equality, most people don't even though they may say they do. You believe that minority groups within the US should be provided unequal treatment for the past misdeeds of the majority. It also seems that you do not believe that racism can come from a minority. These are typical beliefs of many, but some that I myself avoid because they do not help remedy the racial issues we have in the country.

[Caliman73]

56. I guess we should all just accept the default "white male" view of the world then..

Sorry but your argument is invalidated by the fact that the law was created by white men, applied mainly to white men, and only recently, through struggle has been widened to include women and minority issues. Minority women do not have a documented history of oppressing the populace with their views. They don't have a history of discriminating in hiring, or paying less for equal work, nor of using ethnic origin as a standard by which to judge people as acceptable or not. That honor belongs to white men. That Sotomayor was validating the experiences of women of color when it comes down to understanding the consequences of racism and discrimination does not make her any less qualified to be on the SCOTUS.

[pnutbutr]

66. white guilt

I don't have it. There is no need to feel guilty when you have done nothing wrong and don't see race as an issue in your personal life.

[ismnotwasm]

60. Stop

Whiteness is the invisible standard against all others are held against. It doesn't have to defend itself. It doesn't have to speak. It's the silent norm and all American social constructs, such as our concepts of "justice" or "law" come from that standard. Whites justify opinions about other races from a position of privilege, of master status.

What a white male had to say is never, ever interchangeable with what a Latino woman has to say. There is no real logical comparison, no true comparable context.


Sotomayor's comments were not racist in any case.

[ejpoeta]

58. it has to do with perspective. a person who has experienced discrimination and difficulties

simply BECAUSE of their ethnicity would have a different perspective and understanding of things than say a white man who hasn't because he is white and a man. they will look at laws and their meanings differently because of their perspective on the world around them. a judges rulings are based on the law and the reading of that law and people with different perspectives might read the intent of a law differently.

[Arkana]

40. You're an idiot.

The quote in context indicates that she believes that Latina women who've lived long and experienced discrimination have better insight into those cases than white guys who haven't experienced discrimination first hand.

[pnutbutr]

46. so...

she's saying she will show preference based on race in her rulings that deal with discrimination? Or is she just saying that she will be better able to understand the plight of minorities even though that understanding has no bearing on her rulings which would make the experience pointless to point out?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Do you disagree with Sotomayor?

Do you think a white guy with no experience is better qualified than a hispanic woman with experience?

[pnutbutr]

27. the experience she was referring to is not

what you are referring to here. I'm gonna call out another attempt to steer this toward me being a bigot.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. So you're saying it's not really experience if minorities have it.

Experience that white people have is better than what people of color have.

"I'm gonna call out another attempt to steer this toward me being a bigot."

What Sotomayor said was perfectly correct, and the attempt of racists to say otherwise is clear bigotry.

Maybe you should have thought it through before cribbing racist RW talking points.

[pnutbutr]

31. so I was correct

you were calling me a bigot and did try to twist the term experience to mean something other than what was intended.

Calling out a racist comment now means you are a racist? :rofl:

[spanone]

43. context my friend, context..it's only 'ridiculous' if as you have, taken it out of context

http://washingtonindependent.com/44428/sotomayors-controversial-2002-comment-is-supported-by-recent-academic-studies

[calico1]

3. Well, who better than a rich White man to

have the empathy to be able to make decisions for the rest of us? Surely his life experiences prepare him for that.


:silly:

[pnutbutr]

5. because

everyone knows the white man is the devil, incapable of empathy or enduring hardships in his life experiences.

[marmar]

6. Mon dieu......

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

7. So, you don't understand what she said either, do you?

[calico1]

22. Never mind..

[hfojvt]

32. a white man does not have to be a devil

in order to have not had the same experiences as a Latina woman.

[EFerrari]

4. No one is better qualified by his experience as an insular bigot

than Tancredo.

[opihimoimoi]

17. He should be Banned from making Terrorist Statements on TV

His views are of the extreme type and is counterproductive...

Its not constructive crits....its the Nits...for that he should be hogtied to a large tree so people could throw rotten eggs at him...

[Bonn1997]

69. Based on our country's history, I would say that...

your swapping leads to a false statement and Sotomayor's is a true statement. As a white man, I readily admit that I agree with her statement and hope she does not back down from it. All I hear on the media now are a bunch of wealthy, old white men who have either forgotten the decision-making of white men historically in our nation, or who think that discrimination and prejudice are entirely past us.

[EFerrari]

36. "My hope is I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further

into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging but I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." -- A Latina Judge's Voice, Sotomayor

This woman is obviously a racist radical who seems dangerously aware of herself. Not only should she not be confirmed, she should be burned for a witch!

lol

[pnutbutr]

39. exactly

Judging based on gender and Latina heritage. Sounds very objective. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

42. Except she didn't say that. She said that how she judges

will be in part a function of who she is.

That's how every judge judges and is so obvious that it almost defies explanation.

She didn't say, "I will judge cases based solely on my gender and my ethnicity".

[pnutbutr]

49. she said

"...some will be based on..."

[EFerrari]

50. Some refers to *difference*, not to decisions.

"I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging but I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage".

Just as the difference in someone else's judging would be based on their Baptist upbringing or being raised in suburbia or being 4 feet tall.

[pnutbutr]

52. unless their judging is

based on the law. But who wants that? :eyes:

[EFerrari]

54. Are you claiming that white male judges base decisions on the law

in the absence of who they are? If you are, that's bullshit.

[pnutbutr]

67. There are good and bad judges from all walks of life

Your statement here apparently makes the claim that no white male judges base their decisions solely on the law. You have stereotyped all white male judges into a group which shows discrimination.

[MellowDem]

55. I will only say this...

That speech will do Sotomayor no favors. I read through the entire speech to get the context as well, and it still made me flinch a couple times. Like this passage:

"And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address."

The fact that she even entertains the idea that we have different perspectives due to basic differences in logic and reasoning is what I don't like. That's some real old school borderline racist/sexist thinking about race and gender. Of course, it's impossible to tell which she is talking about and she doesn't say she necessarily agrees with it.

Here is most controversial part of the speech which I include the full paragraph to give more context:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."

Her reference to perhaps believing there are inherent physiological differences between genders/races is pretty hard to defend. And from this full context, her saying that she would hope she would reach a better conclusion than a white male without the experiences of a Latina woman just sounded plain stupid to me. She wasn't referencing specific, Latina related cases from the sound of it, just overall that Latina women will "more often than not" reach better conclusions than white men because of their experiences. I think that is a very stupid and idiotic statement, even given the context. Perhaps she worded it wrong and that wasn't her intention, but it doesn't seem like that. I can't really defend it.

Do I think Sotomayor is a racist? No. But I think she exuded some rather bigoted beliefs in this speech which she will have a hard time explaining.

[EFerrari]

57. There is nothing bigoted in discussing diversity or in considering

that a person's diversity follows them to the bench.

There is zero wrong with her wording. She was very precise.

[MellowDem]

59. I agree...

but entertaining possibilities of "physiological differences" between races and genders? That's the problem. Or even claiming that certain experiences will lead one race to consistently make better conclusions than another. Neither of those speak to diversity on the bench and expose a certain kind of worldview.

[EFerrari]

61. Careful, there are physiological differences between races and genders.

And she didn't claim that certain experiences lead one RACE to consistently come to better conclusions; she said certain EXPERIENCES can lead you to better conclusions in DISCRIMINATION CASES, i.e., in that case, the experience of belonging to two minorities.

[MellowDem]

62. Not from what I read...

I read the entire speech, and there was nothing in there that said she was speaking specifically about discrimination cases. If she was, she didn't make it clear, which is unfortunate. But even then, I don't think it was a good comment. As she said, just look at Clarence Thomas, would he be automatically more qualified in discrimination cases because he's black?

As for your title, I'm afraid that is only true (in obvious ways) for gender. Sure, there are physiological differences, but do they effect the logic and reasoning of a justice? Those same physiological differences between men and women was used to say how men are better thinkers than women etc. etc. which is complete bullshit. Physiological differences have nothing to do with the performance of a judge.

For race, a made up social construct, there has never been any proof of physiological differences among racial lines. Sure, there are differences between populations on Earth, but those populations are never divided along the lines we have defined as "race". And those differences have nothing to do with personality or how smart someone is. That's why it was disconcerting to see her say that.

If her having a vagina or a white man having blue eyes will effect their judging, then that is new to me. Cultural differences and experiences obviously can, but that other stuff is pretty ignorant.

[EFerrari]

64. You're making assumptions that she didn't and doesn't.

She never said a vagina is a thinking aid. She said, essentially, the experience of minority is helpful. Ditto for racial or ethnic self identification.