Comments

1. atlasien wrote:

   I’ve been changing the station whenever I hear anything about the confirmation hearing. It’s just too irritating.

   “Empathy, empathy, empathy, do you believe in castrating white men, if not, when did you stop believing in castrating white men, empathy, empathy BABY KILLER empathy empathy” wash rinse and repeat for innumerable hours…

   Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 11:33 am ¶

2. Mary wrote:

   At this point if Sotomayor can get through these hearings without shoving the microphone up someone’s ass, the temperament question should really be off the table forever. (Not that it ever should have been on the table in the first place)

   Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 12:02 pm ¶

3. queerhapa wrote:

   @atlasien: Funny, all I hear is “Blah blah blah WISE LATINA blah blah WISE LATINA blah blah.”

   Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 12:05 pm ¶

4. Sean wrote:

   I’m following the hearings… did Sen Tom Coburn just tell her “you have some ’splaining to do?”

   Ugh…

   Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 12:30 pm ¶

5. TM wrote:

   Yeah, John Cornyn basically implied Sotomayor lacked empathy for the ‘hardships’ of the firefighters in the Ricci case, while all the ‘wise latina’ comments are directly attacking her as being potentially empathetic.

   Gah.

   Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 12:32 pm ¶

6. ceecee wrote:

   @ Sean he sure did.
   I’m following live blogging @ NYT. She’s done a great job keeping calm under pressure. taking notes for my next job interview

   Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 1:32 pm ¶

7. blah wrote:

   Well Sessions said yesterday that she should have voted with her Puerto Rican brethren. Republicans are really stepping on it and I think following Pat Buchanan logic that they have lost the Hispanic vote so they may as well solidify the white racist vote. Graham was simply disgusting and the white male privilege was very pungent in the room.

   Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 1:35 pm ¶

8. Slush wrote:

   Not following it, it just makes me livid. But she’s doing great I think she’ll be fine. Cosign Mary on the ‘temperament.’

   Here’s the counterpoint in the GOP to Sessions and Graham, but I don’t think it’s a loud one.

   http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/prominent-hispanic-republican-says-gop-must-change-its-tone-2009-07-13.html

   Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 1:57 pm ¶

9. AJ Plaid wrote:

   I’ve been listening to the nomination hearings and getting more and more aggravated to the point I feel like not listening anymore and just keeping up with someone’s tweets.

   And I know why I feel this way: I’m watching variations of the same attitudes and microaggressions I experience in my own life and the calm I have to keep in the face of it when I really don’t feel like it: verbal slices at my intellect, the snarky assumptions about my “natural” affiliations, the backhanded praise, the ambush disguised as an innocent question. And I feel like saying “enough!” and not wanting to hear it anymore.

   Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 2:28 pm ¶

10. Phil Deeze wrote:

    @ Blah,
    I found it ironic that Sessions thinks that all Puerto Rican judges should think alike. He’d be the first one to bash me for suggesting that all shitheads like Sessions think alike based on the uniform they wear.
    Sotomayer is like a bug-zapper for Sessions: he collides with her and she stings him every time, but one of his buddies insists on trying the same tactic and meets the same end.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 4:02 pm ¶

11. jmn wrote:

    I liked Rachel Maddow’s coverage of the hearings.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31914298

    Can’t wait to hear how she spotlights the dipshittery of the Republican senators tonight.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 5:26 pm ¶

12. Fiqah wrote:

    Prejudice. Wrote a song ’bout it. Wanna hear it? Here it go: http://possumstew.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/case-study-white-repudiation-and-sonia-sotomayor/

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 6:40 pm ¶

13. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    I gather the Senators have forced Sotomayor to back off her “wise Latina” comment. She’s saying her background will influence her personal beliefs, but not her court rulings, which she’ll base strictly on the law.

    What a crock!

    Hello? Does anybody understand why there are so many 5-4 votes on the Supreme Court, with the two sides diametrically opposed? They can’t both be deciding the cases objectively. The facts and issues are the same for both sides, so they MUST be deciding the cases subjectively–based on their personal preferences, beliefs, and feelings.

    Of course, Sotomayor has to go through this kabuki of denial to get confirmed. If it were me, I’d rip the Senators apart on this joke of deciding the law “objectively.” My nomination would go down in flames, but perhaps future nominees wouldn’t have to lie and pretend.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 6:56 pm ¶

14. Pickly wrote:

    I hate to say it to you all, but sotomayro brought this on herself.

    If she’d only chosen to be a republican, she’d be an example of how minorities/poor people don’t need any big government programs to get ahead, how liberals are weakening the country by creating all these lazy welfare people, etc., etc. big government, welfare, etc Or something along those lines. Plus some racism still. (Or course, she would than have not been nominated, or would have changed viewpoints, and now the whole thing goes out of whack)

    (This post is meant in a silly way, just to make dead sure its clear.)

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 8:18 pm ¶

15. Nin wrote:

    I’m embarrassed for the Republicans. They keep repeating themselves, like they’re challenging themselves on who will make the biggest fool between them.

    They clearly have no substantive criticism on her record, so by all means, keep beating the dead horse that isn’t really a horse.

    “Wise latina” — die, phrase, DIE! Sotomayor is coming across so well, so smart and well spoken. I’m loving her so far, she’s being tight-lipped but sadly, that’s what’s required to get confirmed and not give the GOP any more phrases they can bend of shape and proper context.

    The “temperament” rant was *truly* laughable.

    But the show must go on.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 8:46 pm ¶

16. Anonymous wrote:

    Sotomayor is correct: being a minority coming from the bottom DOES give you a unique perspective. So shut it.

    I can’t stand hearing another comment about her temperament: It absolutely SCREAMS racism- surely we are all familiar with the “hot tamale” stereotype, and certainly sexism, playing on the confunded notions that women are just hot blubbering messes of hormones who can’t make decisions for themselves.

    Posted 15 Jul 2009 at 9:29 pm ¶

17. Paz wrote:

    I am amazed that Sotomayor remains so calm. I would have hurled objects at those Congressmen by now.
    Funny how the Repubs forget about Samuel Alito saying that his Italian immigrant background would no doubt influence his decisions. Oh wait he’s white, so that means he’s neutral.

    And personally I would rather that conservatives come out in the open with their racist bullshit instead of greeting “the Hispanic demographic” with a patronizing “Buenos días!” and then discuss the border wall amongst themselves.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 1:04 am ¶

18. Lxy wrote:

    From what I seen of these hearings, there seems to be an underlying theme to them: White Males are under seige! Defend the White Males!

    And for some reason, Jeff Sessions reminds me of a used car salesman.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 2:04 am ¶

19. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    “The 10 Dumbest Things Republicans Have Said About the Sotomayor Hearings”

    http://www.alternet.org/rights/141321/the_10_dumbest_things_republicans_have_said_about_the_sotomayor_hearings

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 2:14 am ¶

20. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/2009/07/sonia-sotomayor-and-the-end-of.html

    Is this just a temporary breathing spell in the culture wars due to the sudden spike in concern about other issues, first Iraq, then the economy, or is a fundamental shift in our politics taking place? I believe the latter is the case since, as this report establishes, ongoing demographic shifts have seriously eroded the mass base for culture wars politics and will continue to erode this base in the future.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 2:24 am ¶

21. J wrote:

    Its just amazing to me how nobody questions the idea of white “identity” as being neutral. Everyone is asking whether her ‘identity’ will impact her positions and nobody seems to be able to step back and wonder how their ‘identity’ as a white man may impact theirs.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 7:52 am ¶

22. Jess wrote:

    Part of the problem is the hearing process itself. It rewards all kinds of idiocy. I haven’t got a lot of sympathy for Democrats either in this regard, as they also tend to pontificate and then elicit a nothing-answer. (I haven’t had any fun watching a hearing since Bork was nominated).

    That’s the process: Senator talks, asks nominee to comment, nominee says nothing substantive (because they can’t), rinse repeat.

    There are any number of ways to rearrange the “advise and consent” role the Senate is supposed to have. One suggestion I saw (on http://www.electoral-vote.com) was to have the party leader in the Senate (a Democrat in this case) give a list of candidates to the president and go from there. I’m not the most gigantic fan of this, but it would mean the Senate actually decides something. And I’d love to hear other people’s suggestions of how to skin that cat. The Constitution doesn’t spell out the process of nomination or choosing candidates, so it there is a lot of flexibility there.

    Also, let’s remember why we have human judges at all. The whole point is that people will interpret things in their own way, it’s why we have a court in the first place. When people talk about the “rule of law” they often forget that laws are made by people.

    Whenever someone yaks about “judicial activism” it just means the judge made a decision they didn’t like.

    John Kyl (R-AZ) will probably vote yes because if he doesn’t his own voters will hit back hard, and there are other GOP senators in a similar position — they can’t afford to piss off the Latino population anymore than they have already.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 8:06 am ¶

23. B wrote:

    @ Rob Schmidt:

    Hello? Does anybody understand why there are so many 5-4 votes on the Supreme Court, with the two sides diametrically opposed? They can’t both be deciding the cases objectively.

    Well, it’s more a case of how they interpret the Constitution, rather than being objective vs. subjective. After all, the medical marijuana ban was upheld by the liberal justices, not the conservative ones, which is exactly the opposite of how you might think they’d vote based on feelings about drugs. The biggest problem is that you have a court composed of almost half-and-half strict and liberal constitutionalists, which means that some of them are sticking to the word-for-word reading of the Constitution (the document doesn’t have the words “right to privacy” in it, therefore, we don’t have one), while others believe that you have to read between the lines (the contents of various amendments clearly demonstrate we have a right to privacy).

    Which is a simplistic, not-very-nuanced, explanation of it all, but I think it’s accurate.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 8:54 am ¶

24. syd wrote:

    Blogger has marked the Vintage Bulletin blog as spam & locked it pending review. How ridiculous. Real spam blogs stay open but I get locked.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 8:57 am ¶

25. Persia wrote:

    And personally I would rather that conservatives come out in the open with their racist bullshit

    I suppose the upside is that they are.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 9:03 am ¶

26. habby wrote:

    I think Judge Sotomayor’s temperament is impressive. I hope her nomination brings light to many of the racial issues that our country still faces today. White supremacy is still present in our communities and in the blogosphere. Here’s an incident I saw, http://www.governmentalityblog.com/my_weblog/2009/07/my-fight-with-white-supremacists-.html
    Every little step, such as a latina judge, can make a difference.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 9:57 am ¶

27. Lxy wrote:

    Its just amazing to me how nobody questions the idea of white “identity” as being neutral. Everyone is asking whether her ‘identity’ will impact her positions and nobody seems to be able to step back and wonder how their ‘identity’ as a white man may impact theirs.

    The White Male perspective is the universal perspective, doncha know?

    Everybody else’s perspective (including that of Wise Latinas) is just a special interest engaging in identity politics, racial favoritism, and quotas against White people.

    In fact, White is the new Black.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 8:17 pm ¶

28. Nin wrote:

    Just watched Pat Buchanan on The Rachel Maddow Show, and I can’t believe what I just saw and heard.

    Somebody tell that man the next time he makes the argument that the Supreme Court Justices are mostly men and white because they died on wars for the USA — tell Pat that per capita, more Puerto Ricans have died on American battlefields than soldiers from anywhere else in the continental US for the last 30-40 years. They can’t even vote for their Commander in Chief if they live on the island, but they fight for his causes, they die and leave behind family and friends just the same as everyone else.

    Also, Pat & Co., Puerto Rican is not a race; by insulting the efforts of one Puerto Rican as simply “affirmative action”, you’re dismissing the efforts of a multitude of races that make up the Puerto Rican diaspora.

    I’m appalled that Sonia Sotomayor, a woman (regardless of racial background) who has done well for herself, is being used by the most despicable racists of all, those who veil their efforts, hiding behind the ‘otherness’ of anyone who isn’t a white American male; discrediting anyone who looks a little different, because clearly, that difference is a frontal attack to the monolithic system of whiteness in America.

    It’s not what Sotomayor does and says, it’s WHO SHE IS that bothers Pat, she’s a woman, and she’s Latina, and she has the nerve to presume to serve on the holy area that long someone decided only white men could enter. Because the Supreme Court matters, and we can’t have “the other” making choices when it actually matters, when it counts. We can entertain ourselves and others, play Sports, but when it’s matters, we have to stand down and bow our heads in perpetual shame that we were born inferior. We need to accept the cruel fate of not being born as bright as the color of pale skin. We must –hate- ourselves and admit that by golly, we’re not deserving of anything good and relevant, we’re bound to our dirty streets and brown skin, to be mediocre and lost without the guiding white light showing us the way at all times.

    I’m sad and I’m angry, and I’m not sure why, because this should come as no surprise to me by this point, it’s Pat Buchanan, it’s the Republican Party, it’s the closed fist of history punching me in the face when I thought we were moving on.

    How Rachel Maddow didn’t drop dead from the avalanche of stupid falling on her head, I may never know.

    Posted 16 Jul 2009 at 9:59 pm ¶

29. Westerly wrote:

    And how Sotomayer has remained so composed in the face of such open hostility and derision is impressive to say the least. MSM is up to its usual tricks. I watched a ‘news’ article on CNN that was “riffing” on the ridiculous ‘Wise Latina’ controversy (cue a bunch of sneering white men smirking and laughing at the very idea of wisdom being associated with *guffaw* a Latina).

    But even more disturbing than that was the disrepectful and flippant tone of the reporters. They were reporting on overt racism yet were behaving as if they were reporting on some fluffy human interest story that was highly humorous and thus an opportunity to mug and be as glib and excruciatingly ‘knowing’ as possible.

    They were straining at the bit not to show off their ‘cool’ credentials by jumping into the frame of the story and joining in the mocking.

    Sure – it’s not their job to ediorialise the news and condemn the nonsense. But by being gleeful and smug it is, I think, a form of editorialising.

    While objectivity may be a myth, I still expect a degree of professional distance or at least some semblance of composure from reporters. It was so bad that my mother checked to make sure she hadn’t accidentally switched on to Fox News, while I was wondering why CNN was seeking to emulate E! channel.

    Posted 17 Jul 2009 at 2:49 am ¶

30. deb wrote:

    Ugh. Fuck politics.

    Right on! LaToya. I friggin’ hate (electoral) politricks.

    Posted 17 Jul 2009 at 8:49 pm ¶

31. Jennoschmello wrote:

    Eh, I’m going to sound apathetic (maybe) when I say this, but I think Sotomayor will be confirmed as a Supreme Court Judge and really wouldn’t mind if she does.

    Aside from being a minority, she actually has a VERY impressive track record (e.g., determination, intelligence, education, and ambition).

    Posted 24 Jul 2009 at 9:35 am ¶