Obama Nominates Anti-White Latina for SCOTUS
Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick Slapped Down Reverse Discrimination Case in One-Paragraph Opinion:U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, voted to deny a racial discrimination claim in a 2008 decision. She dismissed the case in a one-paragraph statement that, in the opinion of one dissenting judge, ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.Steve Sailer wrote about Ricci in Playing With Fire: The Obama Administration Backs Anti-White Discrimination in Ricci.
The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, involved a group of 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who filed suit in 2003 claiming that the city of New Haven, Conn., engaged in racial discrimination when it threw out the results of two promotion tests because none of the city’s black applicants had passed the tests.
Each of the plaintiffs had passed the exam. The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The city threw out the results because it feared potential lawsuits from activist groups if few or no minority candidates were promoted. The city also claimed that in addition to potential lawsuits, promotions based on the test results would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department.
The firefighters sued, arguing that New Haven was discriminating against them by deciding that the tests would promote too many white candidates and too few minorities.
Federal Judge Janet Bond Arterton rejected the firefighters’ appeal, siding with the city and saying that no racial discrimination had occurred because the city didn’t promote anyone at all.
U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor issued an order that affirmed Arterton’s decision, issuing a one-paragraph judgment that called Arterton’s ruling “thorough, thoughtful, and well reasoned,”
Sotomayor’s View of Judging Is on the Record from the New York Times, 14 May 2009:
"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," said Judge SotomayorNote that if the ethnies were reversed and this came from a White mouth anti-Whites wouldn't hesitate to identify such an opinion as "racist" "anti-latino" "White supremacism". They would not only exclude such a White from consideration for SCOTUS, they would agitate to terminate whatever current employment the White enjoyed.
The penalty for Sotomayor? Nothing. It might even be a reason she got nominated. But the NYT thinks it "could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing".
How -- and why -- Barack Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court at politico.com, today:
An Obama aide said the president, who interviewed her for an hour in the Oval Office, “was blown away by her — her personal story, her sharp intellect and confidence, and her experience as prosecutor, trial judge, litigator and appellate judge.”
As the most arguably liberal of the four finalists, Sotomayor provides the most fodder for conservative groups, which have vowed to spend millions of dollars on television advertising. Leaders hope a court brawl will help rebuild their movement.Via Elena Kagan: Free Speech Denier comes The Case Against Sotomayor by Jeffrey Rosen, 4 May 2009:
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."UPDATE 26 May 2009: In Sotomayor hates white people and Sotomayor hates white people, pt. 2 James Edwards covers the same subject. He concludes:
Get ready, white folks. Obama is making it as clear as he can that it’s payback time for honkies. You know how he said he wants judges who have “empathy” to be on the Supreme Court? Well, “empathy” means hatred for white people, just like “equality” and “diversity” do.Anti-Whites call euphemisms like these "dog whistles" - though as the Wiki page describes, they think this cynical label only applies to phenomena that confirm their own one-sided view of "racism".
There is no moral equivalence between the appeal to the popular, instinctive desires of White voters that these anti-White anti-racists so detest, and the dishonest euphemisms they themselves so cherish and pretend are popular due to repetition ad nauseum by a like-minded anti-White press. But the comparison does support Edwards' blunt observation. If the "dog whistle" people think popular sympathies for state's rights or against immigration reflect White "racism", then by their own reasoning it's safe for us to conclude that their orwellian celebration of "empathy", "equality" and "diversity" means "I hate Whites".
UPDATE 27 May 2009: From the WSJ, dated 28 (sic) May 2009, Battle Over Sotomayor Heats Up:
Conservatives are focusing on a speech Ms. Sotomayor delivered at the University of California at Berkeley law school, where she said, "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."
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw?" asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on his Web site. "New racism is no better than old racism."
White House aides said the comment was being taken out of context, and predicted it wouldn't put the nomination off course. Indeed, the White House believes the president is operating from a position of strength, and officials emphasized that a pitched confirmation fight isn't inevitable.
"We're all extremely pleased at how the first 24 hours went," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), who has been assigned to chaperone the Bronx-born judge through her confirmation.
"We wanted to make sure we showed the broad support she has in the community," said Mr. Wilkes [executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens], whose group has 115,000 members.
Ms. Sotomayor's critics are fighting an uphill battle, unless some unknown personal scandal emerges, because Democrats control the Senate.Heat? Scandal? Where? She's anti-White and that's "extremely pleasing". The nomination is "right on course".
What in the world could sink her? A quip about pubic hair? Plagiarism? Unpaid taxes? Not paying an undocumented migrant ladeeenyo employee's social security? Starring on Celebrity Apprentice, killing a less wise White competitor with less rich experiences and eating his still beating heart, in prime time? Please. Can anybody imagine anything that might cause Obama or Schumer or Sotomayor herself to withdraw this "historic" nomination?
Labels: anti-white, barack obama, la raza, ricci, scotus, sonia sotomayor, steve sailer
posted by Tanstaafl at 5/26/2009 03:06:00 PM
26 Comments:
"could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing".Oooo. Scary.
Maybe she'll even get lightly rebuked!
Scary indeed. Republican senators might even question her patriotism.
And for their troubles walking on eggshells, specifically ignoring her anti-White attitudes, they'll be identified as the true haters and roundly denounced for their sexism and racism. Obviously. Who else would dare challenge the first latina nominated to the court?
It should come as no surprise if the Republicans present no opposition whatsoever for exactly this reason, while the Democrats will pretend Rosen's critique doesn't exist.
I've updated the post to include links to James Edwards' take.
Another update.
So who thinks this one is a 'Marrano'?
"So who thinks this one is a 'Marrano'?"
Curt Maynard has her in a lineup of O-Banana's SCOTUS picks:
http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2009/05/look-at-obamas-supreme-court-picks.html
Good coverage, Tan, thanks.
The full text of Sotomayor's "wise latina woman" speech, Lecture - ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’, via the NYT.
There's too much to excerpt, but it's easy to summarize: it concerns her "latino/a identity", her desire for more women and "people of color" on the bench, and her conviction that these things have or will have an impact on jurisprudence. It confirms that she is, in anti-racist terms, a "racist" and a "supremacist". Or at least it would if anti-racists didn't specifically exempt "people of color" from any such criticism.
Media Matters for example, in Conservatives react to historic Supreme Court nominee by smearing Sotomayor as "racist," "bigot", explains how charges of racism from Whites are nothing but smears. Well, they don't really explain it. But they do provide a long list of deracinated Whites charging Sotomayor with racism and bigotry. They presume the title alone is enough to convince their readers. It's not hard to believe. Every good anti-White anti-racist knows the old "you're only complaining because you're the racist" line.
Maynard provides no source for his assertion that Sotomayor's father is jewish.
According to Sonia Sotomayor pays emotional tribute to her mother:
Sotomayor's father was a factory worker with a third-grade education who didn't speak English. He died when Sotomayor was 9 -
In the speech linked above she claims both mother and father were born in PR. She also goes on at length about how much pig intestines mean to her.
Still, considering previous revelations about Madeline Albright, John Kerry, George Allen, Richard Holbrooke, ... I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out, after her nomination is sealed, that she's marrano. Which would of course be just another thing for her to celebrate.
Life story, Israel trips tie Sotomayor to Jews:
The story of her life -- the daughter of a Puerto Rican single mother from the Bronx, N.Y., whose ambitions knew no bounds -- resounded with a community that has made the story of immigrant triumph over struggle a template of Jewish American success.
. . .
It doesn't hurt that Sotomayor, 54, is a poster child for strong Jewish-Hispanic relations. In 1986, when she was in private legal practice, she joined one of the first young leadership tours of Israel sponsored by Project Interchange, which is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee.
Sotomayor so enjoyed the country -- its immigrant culture, its popular music influenced heavily by Jewish immigrants from Argentina and Brazil -- that she made a return visit in 1996 when she was a federal judge, and recently joined a Project Interchange U.S.-Israel forum on immigration. In the process, she formed a lifelong friendship with Project Interchange founder Debbie Berger and her husband, Paul, who attended her swearing-in as a Manhattan appeals court judge in 1998.
"She enjoyed Israel not just from an intellectual perspective, she liked the music and the people," Paul Berger told JTA.
No, it doesn't hurt. And it's no coincidence either.
"Maynard provides no source for his assertion that Sotomayor's father is jewish."
--
Cause, unfortunately, Curt quotes that ridiculous blog "judicial-inc" as a source!
Zio-shills extrodinaire!
It would appear that she has literacy problems and needs to go back to school to learn to read properly!
In particular, the Second Amendment.
In Sotomayor - a racist's and a sexist's view AmericanGoy provides his White Eastern European immigrant view of Sotomayor's latinaness and her more general bias in favor of women and "people of color".
Sam Stein at HuffPo writes White House Smacks Gingrich For Calling Sotomayor A Racist:
Playing up the racial aspect of Sotomayor's candidacy is a dangerous proposition for the conservative community, with the risk of offending wide swaths of Hispanics omnipresent.
First I have to credit Gingrich for even broaching the subject. I didn't expect him (or Limbaugh) to do it. I expect now "smacked" he'll consider his grudging duty to deracinated Whites done and will quickly go back to complaining about "liberals".
As for those "liberals", especially the "anti-racist" "liberals" who themselves never show any fear whatsoever that their playing up of the racial aspect of anything might risk offending Whites, we see demonstrated here once again by their reaction to these criticisms of Sotomayor that their "anti-racism" is in reality anti-Whitism.
To be sure their attitude is very grave, but it is not at all aimed at the very real bias Sotomayor shows in favor of "people of color" and against Whites. No, their grave attitude is, of course, aimed at any uppity White who objects to it. This is, after all, the direction the government has been going, de jure as well as de facto, for decades now.
Even with his side holding all the cards and all the coins (and making the rules) "journalist" Stein can't help himself but bluff. Clearly the "conservative community" already offends "wide swaths of hispanics omnipresent" (not to mention "anti-racist" "liberal" jews) by merely existing.
Sonia Sotomayor is/was member of National Council of La Raza (far-left, supports illegal activity).
What will the next "historic" pick be for this "historic" president with the "historic" illegal alien aunt? Raza-schmaza. What we really need is an "undocumented" MS-13 member plucked from death row. Four teardrop tatoos minimum. Who could possibly question the rich experiences and diversity a homie like that would bring to the court? Or how about a former Gitmo inmate, or a somalian "refugee" who used to be a pirate? Let's use some imagination here Emanuel. Sotomayor is such a fossil.
CNN to Tom Tancredo: Don't Mention Judge Sotomayor's La Raza Membership:
At 3:00PM EST CNN's Cuban commentator, Rick Sanchez, interviewed Tom Tancredo, former Republican Representative from Colorado's 6th congressional district.
The subject of the interview was Tancredo's opposition to Sonia Sotomayor, nominated for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter.
Tancredo defended his position by mentioning her membership in the "racist La Raza organization" which he called "The Latino KKK without the robes and nooses." He went on to describe La Raza's mission and its motto: "For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada." (For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.)
At this point, Tancredo's microphone was cut off, and an obviously angry and agitated Sanchez turned to the camera and said, and I quote, "We are not here to talk about La Raza."
Sanchez then turned to the other guest, Paul Waldman, the Jew spokesman for the "Media Matters" website, who said, "Tancredo is taking everything out of context; the standard strategy of the far right," while rolling his eyes with contempt.
The interview continued without further mention of La Raza, and without any sort of reply or response from Sanchez or Waldman on the La Raza connection.
Schumer: "Extremely pleased." Obama spokesman: "It won't put the nomination off course."
If it is ok for her to be a member of La Raza it should be ok for a White to be member of a Racialist organization!
This nomination may start off a new wave of White Nationalist growth!
PS her eyes certainly seem to have that Jewish Mongolian look going on that so many Jews have, Marranos alert for sure!!
Dunkanoion said...
"This nomination may start off a new wave of White Nationalist growth!"Ha ha. Yeah right.
Don't hold your breath.
Buchanan sums up the case against Sotomayor, so far, in Obama’s Idea of Justice. Near the end he writes:
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.
In "post-racial" America, "person of color" is the thing to be.
Anti-White anti-racists like to pretend race is a social construct, and they'll often ridicule the validity of Whiteness even as a construct. This is both malicious and disingenous. None of them have anything at all against "person of color", a social construct more chimeric than White and whose very definition stands only in contrast to the Whiteness they deny is valid.
From politico, Dems differ on 'wise Latina' defenses:
As Republicans continue to hammer Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor for a 2001 assertion that’s become known as the “wise Latina” remark, her backers are struggling to come up with a single coherent line of defense.
In the past few days, supporters confronted with the remark have offered a range of divergent tactics and tones, offering explanations that span from apologetic to defiant to suggesting Sotomayor may have been joking.
They're not struggling. Not at all. Their single coherent line of defense is: "racistsayswhat?"
In The Sotomayor Nomination: More Glimpses of Jewish Activism — and a Warning to Republicans, Kevin MacDonald writes:
Whatever Jewish self conceptions of their role in American ethnic politics, the only consistent thread has been to oppose the interests of the White, European-derived majority. In addition to favoring massive non-White immigration and promoting programs that pathologize White identity and interests, making alliances with other minority groups has been a critically important part of that effort.
. . .
These Jewish organizations have sought close relationships with Latino organizations such as the National Council of La Raza and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). For example, one project of the FFEU is to organize an annual meeting of the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the World Jewish Congress, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.
. . .
I point out this rich tapestry of Jewish ethnic activism to give some idea of what those who advocate for White identity and interests are up against. Like the Obama presidency, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is exactly the sort of thing favored by the activist Jewish community because it is yet another marker in the march toward the dispossession of Whites in America.
"People of color" are waging a racial war against us, and our leaders have abdicated, surrendered, or abandoned the field.
Sailer at VDARE, The Sotomayor Scandal: What Does it Mean for America?Extending disparate impact benefits to Hispanics has set up a potentially devastating dilemma. Now America was inviting in foreigners, both legal and illegal immigrants, and immediately rewarding them with legal privileges in hiring over the white population.
In other words, immigration plus anti-White "hate" ideology equals the dispossession and displacement of Whites. It isn't "potentially" devastating. The devastation is in full swing. When first enacted these policies had predictable consequences, and now those consequences are coming a cropper.
In a comment to Sailer's Andrew Gelman on the Hispanic vote in 2008, Lucius Vorenus writes:
Hispanics have constituted a plurality of all school children in California since the 1996-97 school year:
Enrollment by Ethnicity in Public Schools -
ed-data.k12.ca.usHispanics now constitute an absolute majority [roughly 51.3 %] of all second graders in California:
California Standardized Testing And Reporting (STAR) Program -
star.cde.ca.govAnd the California Department of Finance projects that in 2040, the numbers will look like this:
CALIFORNIA.XLS -
dof.ca.gov0-4 years of age
Hispanic: 2,299,429
White: 777,318
Asian: 388,886
Black: 162,808
Multirace: 90,559
Pacific Islander: 19,461
American [???] Indian: 16,010 -
Today in California when latino parents, many here illegally, want to transfer their kids into the better schools they explicitly get preference from the school administrators because they're "minorities". White parents, even those whose kids attend schools like Miller Elementary are told they probably won't get their choice, because they're not a "minority".
Miller doesn't even accurately reflect the devastation in Escondido. For a more honest view of where "diversity" is heading you have to look at the demographics of 4 year new Farr Elementary. Farr was built in a neighborhood with a neglible amount of new housing, the excess students coming from homes in which multiple large families, many illegal, squeeze into homes formerly occupied by one White family.
Of course in doing this the "people of color" violate parking and housing ordinances, and bring their violent gang "culture" with them. The local government mostly looks the other way, because when they try to do anything about the problems the "people of color" at the ACLU come to town threatening to sue the city into bankruptcy. It's amazing that this ploy still works since the city and the whole state now are heading for bankruptcy and worse anyway.
Whites are abandoning Escondido and California, tired of being treated like walking ATMs and hapless punching bags by "people of color" who cling to us like needy children screaming "Gimme gimme gimme, I hate you hate you hate you!" The ones who remain are having a hard time blaming White "racism" for all the problems, but that doesn't stop them from trying.
Ala Sailer's "NAM" (non-asian minorities, ie. blacks and ladeeenyos) it is possible to more precisely identify and yet simultaneously euphemize, liberal style, the various "people of color". We can call them LPOCs, BPOCs, APOCs, and JPOCs.
Here, let's try it out in suitably Saileresque above-it-all fashion - to demonstrate by contrast the explicative vacuity of a marxist-materialist aracial view of current events in the US:
What we see today is that relatively capable and generally upper class JPOCs and APOCs (JPOCs mainly) empowering and aligning themselves with the relatively dysfunctional and generally lower class LPOCs and BPOCs. The common goal, cutting across class lines, is to silence, dispossess, and displace Whites. When Whites are gone the various POCs will surely then begin to fight amongst themselves, perhaps with the JPOCs redirecting the LPOCs and BPOCs to sink their teeth into the APOCs.
Sailer of course would never so explicitly contrast Whites and JPOCs, and seems incapable of accurately describing, even with euphemisms, the nature or depth of the aggression aimed at Whites.
Look at that smile, it is not a friendly one! It conceals a deep well of aggression.
Here's a coincidence.
Sailer now suggests, seriously apparently, that Whites argue against Sotomayor in marxist-materialist terms. See Controlling the terms of discourse.
Oh yeah. I'm sure that'll convince the genocidal anti-White bastards of the error in their ways.
Someone who wants to euphemize White could write NPOC, for non-person-of-color, intended in the same demeaning sense as "non-hispanic White", and with the added bonus of potential confusion with BPOC.
I prefer White.
Sotomayor's Senate Questionnaire. She was a NCLR (La Raza) member between 1998 and 2004. The long list of events she has attended is thoroughly larded with advocacy for hispanic, latino, and the interests of various other "people of color". Scanning by eye it appears non-racial non-sexist profession-related events were the exception.
CQ Politics | Legal Beat - Sotomayor Repeatedly Referenced 'Wise Woman' in Speeches:
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested "a wise Latina woman" or "wise woman" judge might "reach a better conclusion" than a male judge.
My Way News - Gender and heritage a frequent topic for Sotomayor
Obama has said he is "sure she would have restated it." In fact, she said it almost precisely the same way in speeches to the Princeton Club in 2002 and one at Seton Hall law school in 2003, according to copies she sent the Senate.
She's restated it many times. Besides revealing the "mistake" excuse as a lie, it highlights the racist-sexist double standard. All a White man has to do is say something condescending about another race or gender once to prove himself unworthy. A "wise latina" proves her worth by doing it over and over again.
Worth to whom?
Sonia Sotomayor found friends in elite group - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com:
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor last year accepted an invitation the Belizean Grove, an elite but little-known women’s-only group.
Founded nearly 10 years ago as the female answer to the Bohemian Grove — a secretive all-male club whose members have included former U.S. presidents and top business leaders — the Belizean Grove has about 125 members, including Army generals, Wall Street executives and former ambassadors.
Sotomayor’s membership in the New York-based group became public Thursday afternoon in a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Since then, the group has been deluged with press calls, said its founder, Susan Stautberg, who explained that “we like to be under the radar screen."
It seems unusual that all this dirt is coming to the surface now rather than after Sotomayor's confirmation. Perhaps it has something to do with "Elena Kagan: Free Speech Denier" waiting in the wings, ready and eager to serve.
Think Progress » Martinez dismisses uproar over Sotomayor’s ‘wise Latina’ comment: ‘I understand what she is trying to say.’:
For someone who is of Latin background, personally, I understand what she is trying to say. Which is, the richness of her experience forms who she is. It forms who I am.
Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) says nothing to see here, this brown supremacist is a perfectly normal latina. Isn't that a relief?
Nice try. The way I understand it is that she thinks the richness of her experience is better than the richness of any White male judge's experience, and I'm more qualified than Martinez to do that understanding because I'm White, not ladeeenyo.
Ladeeenyos seem to think invoking the "richness" of their "experience" works like magic, excusing whatever else they say or do.
From NYT via Sailer:
Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as “a product of affirmative action” who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to “cultural biases” that are “built into testing.”
. . .
“With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates,” she said. “And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.”
Hey Ho Hey Ho
western culcha gotta go
as that idiot Jesse "Jaimetown" Jackson was trying to say.
Rice University Law programme was ruined by affirmative action.
Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers too.
Post a Comment
<< Home