printUpdate I (May 29): Go Tancredo! “ALL FOR THE RACE; NOTHING FOR THE REST” is how Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo encapsulated La Raza’s mission. On CNN, Tancredo went on to call La Raza, to which the newly nominated Lady Justice belongs, a Latino KKK. As I write, the heroic Tancredo is hammering David Shuster, an MSNBC hombre—who tried to pin him up against the wall—refusing to back down, backing-up his words impeccably with a tale of La Raza’s honoring of a gentleman whose cri de coeur was “eliminate the Gringo.”
And you know what? When meek WASPs refuse to turn the other cheek, bullies back down. Likewise, Shuster was shushed.
Update II (May 29): Margaret Warner of the PBS’s News Hour talked to legal scholars Emma Coleman Jordan of Georgetown University Law School and Paul Cassell of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah about Sotomayor’s judicial record. Coleman, an African-American woman, called Sotomayor brilliant. What else? Cassell, who actually could be a candidate for this liberally applied designation, said he had read very many of her decisions and that she “breaks to the Left,” sides with the plaintiff in so-called sexual harassment cases, and has a pedestrian mind that is no match for Antonin Scalia’s. That’s the good news.
As readers have noted in this space, one doesn’t wish for a formidable liberal legal theorist, but, rather, for a plodder; someone who can barely digest the facts of a case, much less find the intellectual wherewithal to apply critical race theory to the facts. You don’t want a woman capable of expansive theoretical formulations. However, it is quite clear that this is a double-edged sword; it portends a gravitation toward group think. I am Latina hear me roar, and all that stuff. Sotomayor is Spanish for racial set-asides. It is quite clear from Staurt Taylor’s stellar coverage (National Journal Online) that Sotomayor thinks racial groups ought to be represented in a society’s institutions commensurate with their percentage in that society. An absence of such representation, in this post hoc illogic, indicates discrimination. A subtle mind indeed.
(May 28): In a previous post I said that Obama, who is married to an intellectual pygmy — a mediocrity who graduated from an Ivy League university — seems wedded to the idea of entrenching her ilk everywhere. Pat Buchanan’s on the same page, although Mr. Buchanan is more positive than I am about the Republican’s capacity to counter Obama:
“The process by which Sotomayor was selected testifies to what we can expect in Obama’s America. Not a single male was in the final four. And she was picked over the three other women because she was a person of color, a ‘two-fer.’ Affirmative action start to finish.
Reading 30 of her opinions, GW law professor Jonathan Turley found them ‘notable’ for ‘lack of depth.’
Liberal law professor and Supreme Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports, after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench.
The lady is a lightweight.
What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do?
Abjure the vicious tactics Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. Lay out the lady’s record. And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in.”
The republicans won’t do a thing, other than rubber stamp Mr.Obamas’ nominee. The “self-serving bootlickers” are out in force.
We get what we deserve. The nation blindly voted for Barack Hussein Obama and now we live with the consequences.
Hopefully B.H. Obama will be limited to one term, but by the time he is finished the fascism will be complete.
Empathy on the Supreme Court is what Mr. Obama wants and that is what he will get because there is no true opposition to republican or democrat politicians. Ms. Sotomayor is a shoe in. She won’t be “borked”. No one will even seriously look at her judicial writings or temperament.
Response to “Sotomayor bashing” by Republican National Committee Chairman Steele:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-national-committee/steele-gop-needs-to-stop-slammin-and-rammin-on-sotomayor/
BAB readers will not be surprised; Republicans are scum. But what about Great Lady Ann (Coulter)? She wrote an op-ed this week denouncing Sotomayor, but has not yet seen fit to denounce the Republican Party; nor to renounce her membership.
Perceptive Americans see through this fraud. Pat Buchanan has it right, as he does on so many issues. In my view, all principled Republican party members should resign at once. That includes Lady Ann.
[But Coulter is unprincipled. So why should she resign? As I wrote, “Coulter is an attractive GOP cheerleader, who has never opposed The Party in any meaningful way. When matters get heated, she further escapes into her formulaic, ‘Liberals This; Liberals That.’ A recipe that works well for her.”]
I already saw the ridiculous Chris Matthews having his regular Two Minutes Hate against Goldstein (i.e. Rush Limbaugh) for saying that he didn’t want Sotomayor to succeed in getting the nomination (and Matthews took a swipe at Tancredo while he was at it). Of course, most of the Republicans that oppose Sotomayor will have no principles on which to base their opposition and will thus botch it and provide more fodder for the liberal-left. As for those that can elaborate powerful and compelling arguments against Sotomayor, they will be ignored or marginalized by the liberal media.
Unfortunately, any opposition will remain unprincipled with the Republicans and it will be politics as usual. The GOP is nothing more these days than its own worst enemy. You will hear nothing from the GOP in opposing Sotomayor regarding the Constitution, restrained government, redistributive justice, or private property rights. Apart from Ron Paul, there are few, if any others, in the GOP who would articulate these principles
La Raza means “The Race.”
How do I know this?
I was the one who contacted NCLR’s national office in D.C. a few years ago and confirmed this. (At the time NCLR’s website featured nothing but cocoa and sepia toned individuals on its main page. No “Anglos” were to be found.) I asked the young female who answered the phone if she knew what La Raza meant. Her response told me she either did not, or was reluctant to speak the truth. I told her it meant “The Race.” I also told her that I had had 4 years of Spanish at the university level, and knew this to be true. She hemmed and hawed in response, thanked me for my time and got off the phone as soon as possible.
Go to La Raza’s website now. There is no longer a “rainbow coalition” of Hispanics on its main page. http://www.nclr.org/ But there are the appeals and demands for quotas, initiatives and “free” programs for health care, education, etc.
As for Republicans, what can one say? Alberto Gonzales, former Attorney General, used to belong to MAPA. This organization is affiliated with La Raza!
Another “conservative” rooting for Sotomayor, albeit “quietly:”
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/pro-life-catholic-leader-roots-for-obama-nominee/
In the article, Donohue further notes his own positive experience with the Puerto Rican community, of which Ms. Sotomayor is a part. Identifying with a particular ethnic/cultural/racial/gender group can be a great thing, poltically, for someone who does not come from the same group as the major star of the moment.
There’s nothing quite like “one issue” conservatives–Catholic or those of my own biblical Christian faith.
[You’re being your usual charitable self:these people are NOT conservatives — not in any meaningful way.]
I have been reading through the various “mainstream” Republican\conservative responses to the Sotomayor nomination and cannot say I’m very impressed (Pat Buchanan’s excellent article being an exception). The entire “conservative” side of the debate is somewhere between Newt Gingrich’s shrill shrieking and Peggy Noonan’s snooze inducing let’s-all-get-along mantra.
Donahue of the Catholic League is gaming and scheming to increase his political clout.
Hispanics have one of the highest rates of abortion in the country. http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/family_values.htm
So, why would a devout Roman Catholic support her nomination? Is there a quid pro quo involved? Or is he like everyone else in Sodom on the Potomac?
I know the real reason.
All the clergy mentioned as supporting the League are staunch supporters of open borders and Hispanic immigration. http://www.catholicleague.org/about.php