Comments on: Sotomayor Changes Tune on “Wise Latina” Comment

By: RborisT

RborisT — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:00:53 +0000

Hat tip to Hot Air:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/03/oh-my-sotomayor-made-nearly-identical-wise-latina-comment-in-1994-too/

By: MojoMan

MojoMan — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:43:34 +0000

I don’t care if the term racist is used or not to describe her comments. But if a white man had made this statement in his own defense, he would be cast out on his backside. His nomination would have concluded effective almost immediately. Not so with Judge Sotomayor.

Obviously the primary reasons that she was nominated by President Obama were her race and her sex. Apparently there is a special, easier standard being used for vetting this Hispanic female than there has been for other Supreme Court nominees. It appears that the discriminatory practices associated with affirmative action hiring are now being openly used to confirm Supreme Court nominees.

Unfortunately for her, this is a part of the legacy that she will carry with her from day one as a Supreme Court Justice that she may soon want to be forgotten. Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court Justice that was given affirmative action type preferential treatment during her confirmation process. Not only will this diminish her personal stature as a Justice, it will also diminish the stature of the Supreme Court as a whole.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:45:07 +0000

By: OccamsRazor

OccamsRazor — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:10:08 +0000

She’ll say anything to obtain the nomination. Once in, One’s in for life.

Even in her Obama endorsed retort, she essentially reiterates her original statement-not decries it. That a Latina’s “personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging” more than a white Male’s “personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging” . She can no longer separate her experiences of being a Latina, than a white man can of being a white man.

The difference is here that there is video tape of her declaring superiority. Imagine these comments in reverse-it’s unfathomable.

By: JLenardDetroit

JLenardDetroit — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:55:32 +0000

for anyone interested @ PollingPoint.com

By: SoFiMil

SoFiMil — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:19:58 +0000

n/t

By: louisiana

louisiana — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:15:00 +0000

I did not have sex with that woman, or it depends of what your
definition of is is.

By: quakenshake

quakenshake — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:53:49 +0000

I read this last month, only I think her name was Nancy Pel-something then.

By: E Pluribus Unum

E Pluribus Unum — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:21:04 +0000

She will say whatever it takes to get a seat on the Court. Which follows consistently the ethics of the Left.

This flimsy walkback was required because WE (the online right) made her an embarrassment. But she does not mean it. She’s had 8 years to retract that.

By: rbdwiggins

rbdwiggins — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:06:34 +0000

and President Obama’s stated qualifications for his Supreme Court nominee will soon overshadow whether, or not, one specific line in her speech might be construed as racist.

Apparently, the Obama Administration was ill-prepared for the public response to Sotomayor’s nomination, because the TalkingPoints™ simply aren’t working, and since they won’t openly address the constitutional issues in question, they instinctively reacted with personal attacks and demagoguery.

By: molybdanthan

molybdanthan — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:55:04 +0000

By: Tbone

Tbone — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:46:36 +0000

“I didn’t say what I said.”

What’s sad is that the idiots can rely on the press to agree with them.

By: Big Apple Infidel

Big Apple Infidel — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:33:37 +0000

Is this like a non-denial denial?