printI’m shocked. Sonia SotoSetAsides once admitted that her test scores “were not comparable to her colleagues at Princeton and Yale” (with the exception of the scores of Mighty Michelle O). Nor were her scores on par with the scores of the forgotten students the system had helped her usurp.
I’m so disillusioned (irony alert to the prosaic among you). Weren’t we promised by the POTUS, another recipient of racial preferential treatment, that Sotomayor had a first-rate legal mind? Don’t tell me that this society has been hollowed out like a husk at every level—private and public; local, state and federal—by statist social engineering? And so, once again, we were right to call Soto so-and-so a mediocrity, a product of racial set-asides. It’s all so very shocking. You want to add Larry Auster’s analysis to the specter of Soto admitting that her test scores left much to be desired. (On the bright side, perhaps a dim liberal bulb will do less damage as one of America’s new black-robed deities):
Update: “Her academic career appears to have been a fraud from beginning to end, a testament to Ivy League corruption.”
“Two weeks ago, the New York Times reported that, to get up to speed on her English skills at Princeton, Sotomayor was advised to read children’s classics and study basic grammar
books during her summers. How do you graduate first in your class at Princeton if your summer reading consists of ‘Chicken Little’ and ‘The Troll Under the Bridge’?” …
“Thus, Sotomayor got into Princeton, got her No. 1 ranking, was whisked into Yale Law School and made editor of the Yale Law Review – all because she was a Hispanic woman. And those two Ivy League institutions cheated more deserving students of what they had worked a lifetime to achieve, for reasons of race, gender or ethnicity.”
“… were it not for Ivy League dishonesty, Sotomayor would not have gotten into Princeton, would never have been ranked first in her class, would not have gotten into Yale Law, nor been named editor of Yale Law Review, and thus would not be a U.S. appellate court judge today or a nominee to the Supreme Court.”
Who else but Pat Buchanan could deliver such masterstrokes? (Okay… I do quite well). The only facet Pat forgets to speak to: the loss of the importance of object, intellectual standards.
From her comments in the video, it is clear that she sincerely believes that test scores, grades, etc., simply do not reflect a persons academic ability, that as she says, “there is cultural bias built in.” Well, what does this really mean?
Perhaps she is saying that hispanics do not read, write, and comprehend English as well as Anglos do, and that this is a “cultural bias.” This might very well be true, but it is also a significant factor in how well a person can function in school and in the world of work, particularly the law.
Perhaps she is saying that the tests reflect a different approach to life, an attention to detail and precision that is contrary to the free and easy ways of her hispanic heritage. This could certainly be true, but it is also very significant in terms of the ability to do the job.
Finally, she does not seem sufficiently aware to realize what she is saying about herself when she says that she is an AA product, and then goes on to elaborate that this means that she in no way measured up to the academic standards of the schools she attended. She has condemned herself as one who was given her diploma rather than having earned it, and she does not even realize the distinction.
Dr D On says “She has condemned herself as one who was given her diploma rather than having earned it, and she does not even realize the distinction.”
Pardon the sarcasm, but one has to have achieved a few distinctions to be able to point one out.
The fire is 250 feet from the hydrant. Each hose segment is 50 feet. How many segments are needed to put out the fire … – STOP!!! Cultural Bias!! BIGOT!
Now – do some people with good SATs prove to be duds and some people who are not multiple choice mavens prove to have talent – yes – but is there evidence that the imperfect correlation is race based or is this conjecture wishful thinking on Sonia’s part? By the way, does getting straight As in Ward Churchill’s Ethnic Ranting 101 and Cornel West’s Rap Hip-Hop Griping 322 mean that said “A student” is smarter than a B+ grade point student in biomedical engineering or mathematical physics? But then we all know that math and science are culturally biased as well as being sexist! {Of course, legacy doofuses such as Bonesman Bush also get into Ivy League schools under Affirmative Action} However, a distant relative of mine graduated Harvard Law at age 20 with the highest grade average in Harvard history (says Wiki) but regrettably helped draft the Federal Reserve Act before becoming the first (Supreme) Court Jew (Brandeis) – so brains ain’t all they are cracked up to be.
[Wrong; you begins with brains and you build up. Superior intellect and ability must remain pivotal in all endeavors. Politics, by their nature, select a sample of lower abilities. Sheltered employment will do that. The G Factor: IQ is very indicative…]
JP Strauss is using the word “distinction” in a different sense than the way I used it. Even those who have achieved very little, if they can read a dictionary, should be able to understand the distinction between a gift and something earned.
[JP was supporting your point and amplifying it; he, being South African, is using “distinction” in the English sense: achievement or superiority.]
What else should we come to expect from pols who value mediocrity and pliability above all else? We saw this coming with Clinton’s Surgeon General, whatshername, who was living proof that stupidity has value in Washington. Well, this is America today; rock stars with no talent, judges with no discernment, and politicians with no brains. Why else would people like Al Gore be wealthy? And people like Comrade O have power? I am more convinced than ever that P.T. Barnum is behind the great conspiracy curtain. No fair peeking.
(1) Actually, I too am a product of Affirmative Action – my granduncle converted to Christianity and changed his family name from Pascheles to Pauli due to an 1890’s Vienna “Affirmative Action” policy that had a “goal” (quota has a negative connotation) of 100% Christian faculty. My grandfather later changed the name but not the religion. So I’d be Pascheles if not for AA. (2) As for the utility of brains – my dad’s cousin was famous for lashing out at shoddy thinking – see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong – however, I have gotten myself in hot water for not being able to hold my tongue – in DC, brains are ONLY useful if one wishes to be useful but are entirely optional for parasites who are content to waste money on inherently dumb (but politically connected) projects that one may only attack at ones own peril. (3) By the way, brains surely did NOT help Robert Bork in his confirmation to the Supreme Court while sobbing “high tech lynching” was able to vault Clarence Thomas over the 50 vote threshold.
[Conversion equals vying for affirmative action? I don’t think so. Many Jews converted to be allowed to realize their potential; not get favors.]
Pat Buchanan does a great job pointing out inconsistencies between “programs” and the “merit” of specific individuals. Sotomayor is low on merit, assuming traditional standards of merit apply. What she consistently appears to be saying, however, is that merit as we have come to understand it is not a particularly good basis on which to judge anything. Therefore, she, as a “wise Latina woman” (isn’t that redundant?) can render a “better” judgment than white males, based on standards that are nowhere apparent.
Sotomayor uses English poorly. “My test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates,” she says, when she should have said, “My test scores were not comparable to _those_ of my classmates.” Similarly, she avers, “Since I have difficultly defining merit and what merit alone means, and … whether it’s judicial or otherwise, I accept that different experiences, in and of itself, bring merit to the system,” when she should have said, “…I accept that different experiences, in and of _themselves_…”. These are basic phrases that she can’t get right! I shudder to think how her “judgments” as a Supreme Court Justice might affect the rest of us.
Sandra Day O’Connor thought that gays were “underdogs.”
And she graduated third in her class at Stanford!
I have no idea if gays are underdogs, nor Iowa corn farmers nor any other group, but the fact that she said it makes me cringe.
As for Sotomayor, why even have academic standards since the elites will undermine these standards, all the while exempting themselves and extended family from the same.
That’s why George Bush could favor affirmative action for Texas universities, but no one in his family got kicked to the curb in exchange for a marginal minority student attending UT Austin or Texas A
&M.
[I once heard an interview with Day O’Connor. This was one smart woman. Her use of language was superb.]
After having graduated third in her class, O’Connor tried to get a job in private practice as an attorney but couldn’t find one; she was offered a position as a legal secretary. She had tremendous merit and ultimately succeeded against the odds. Sotomayor’s odyssey is quite different. Her unmerited rise means that a more highly qualified individual will not receive the opportunities that (likely) he deserves.
[Thanks for this; can you dig-up a hyperlink on O’conner? I believe she has a website on which she tries to educate about our system, RIP. Whatever her politics, the woman was very impressive.]
The civics website and her wikipedia bio:
http://www.ourcourts.org/learn-about-civics/talk-to-the-justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor