"I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any racial, ethnic or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experiences."
HEY DUMBA$$!!! SHE SAID “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” THAT’S THE WHOLE QOUTE, NO TWIST, NO SPIN!
YOU’RE THE LIBO BA$STARD THAT JUST TWISTED WHAT SHE SAID: “A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.” SHE NEVER SAID THAT, DUMBA$$!
THAT’S NOT WHAT SHE FVCKING SAID! QUOTE THE WHOLE D4MNED SENTENCE CORRECTLY YOU BA$TARD! YOU FVCKING HYPOCRITE! ASK WHY SHE SAID WHAT SHE DID ABOUT WHITE MALES!
Her answer is irrelevant because the DUMA$$ didn’t include the main point in his question. Fvcking Libtard.
TrentJuly 14th, 2009 - 11:56 am
Reverse the races in the quote – would the senators be defending that?
LarseJuly 14th, 2009 - 12:23 pm
This wise Latina thing is going to be like Obama’s birth certificate. The poor crushed and failed cons are never going to get over it. Like some kind of sick teddy bear, the cons will cry and whine about it for years and years.
Just like a baby’s pacifier, wise Latina is just something the right wingnuts can put in their mouths…
Obama’s pick for Supreme Court Justice, Sotomayor – a divisive voice and an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.July 14th, 2009 - 12:24 pm
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life
This statement above is categorically the epitome of racism. Why is Ms. Sotomayor stereotyping and assuming that white male judges can not render fair and just judgments and that the cases presented before a supreme court justice will inevitably involve experiences solely reserved for a Latina woman? The nomination of a United States supreme court justice should involve an individual’s qualifications and character, not ethnic background or other divisive considerations.
No to SotoBigotJuly 14th, 2009 - 1:39 pm
Sotobigot has a 60% reversal rate in cases she has sat on that go to the Supreme Court. If you had only a 40% success rate and applied for a job with that you would not get the job. So why is she being considered for this job.
I guess the exception is for gov’t jobs where PC is more important than job performance. And racial bigotry no longer matters if it is from a Puerto Rican against a white person.
PenceyJuly 14th, 2009 - 1:48 pm
Oh I get it, she didn’t say it, some other twit said it. O’Connor said it. It was a quote. This is the first time I ever heard that O’Connor is a “Wise Latina.”
These LEFT WING FANATICS think we’ll swallow anything. right L”Arse.
By the way L’Arse, you still haven’t told us how much Axelrod pays you to come on here and spray goofy S**T all over the place?
Well, it is not a beauty contest, but I agree, she looks like Hugo Chavez in drag. As for Sotomayor, she’s saying she was trying to inspire young Hispanics with racism? Sure, she is going to claim her colorblindness insofar as the law is concerned, yet it didn’t stop the Supreme court from overturning her last racist decision.
The Dems are going to cram this piece of work down our thoats and I’m sure the electoral backlash will be mighty.
TrentJuly 14th, 2009 - 3:35 pm
Gandhi’s Fist -
How can there be backlash when there is not alternative party? Remember this, if not for the traitorous neocons, you would have President Ron Paul and wouldn’t be concerned with nominees like this.
kmichaelsJuly 14th, 2009 - 3:36 pm
Completely opposite of what she said previously. It is simple. She lied and democrats will kiss her arse anyway because they have no morals and are hungry for power at the expense of honesty and doing what is right. Larse, why dont you grow up and get a real life. Your self esteem must be in the toilet the way you spew your constant garbage.
kmichaelsJuly 14th, 2009 - 3:37 pm
Trent arent you supposed to be on your knees servicing your palestinian terrorist friends? You are such a pathetic loser.
kmichaelsJuly 14th, 2009 - 3:37 pm
Trent arent you supposed to be on your knees servicing your palestinian terrorist friends? You are such a pathetic loser.
Barack Field In MotionJuly 14th, 2009 - 3:47 pm
The OJ defense. Deny deny deny. And your supporters will get you through.
TruthTellerJuly 14th, 2009 - 4:20 pm
How does this sound:
“… a wise White male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.
ANY WHITE MAN who said that would be excoriated, fired and condemned to hell as a filthy, stinking racist by the left, by the press and by spaghetti-spined Republicans. But- if you happen to be an ultra liberal, you can say anything and you get a pass.
The continued destruction of America by the Obamanation.
RobespierreJuly 14th, 2009 - 4:38 pm
it really doesn’t matter.
when the people wise up and rise up,all these problems will no longer exist.
Far Right Wing WackoJuly 14th, 2009 - 5:14 pm
The Far Right Republican Party continues its long trek toward extinction, becoming more and more isolated from the country and the world as the little island of their racist, sexist and ideological agenda shrinks and shrinks under the rising waters of change.
Senator Sessions may well be celebrated at home by the old guard for his ridiculous stand, but in most of the nation he and his constituents look like fossils of an age long gone with the wind. And the Far Right Rethuglican’t Hypocrisy Comedy Parade Continues.
Old ManJuly 14th, 2009 - 5:55 pm
Leahy took over Biden’s spot as the dumbest Senator on the Hill.
Cal218July 14th, 2009 - 6:58 pm
Wow, her eyes are fluttering so fast while she is spinning her statement that the
liberals helped her come up with, I am getting dizzy. She will say anything now,just
to get in, and than she will do whatever she wants once she is in that seat for the
rest of her life. Sickening.
MistyJuly 14th, 2009 - 7:49 pm
This radical racist hag will be approved because she will lie and do whatever it takes.
Marc SanfordJuly 14th, 2009 - 11:21 pm
To show you how stupid right wingers are, according to them, Judge Sotomayor is a hot-tempered, dim-witted bigot whose judicial activism (read nutty identity politics) could play havoc with the Constitution. Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, even called her a “Latina racist.” Amazingly, these are the same people who continue to insist that Sarah Palin is qualified to run for president of the United States.
PLEASE!!!
Sonia Sotomayor, who grew up in a Bronx housing project, is a shoo-in for the Supreme Court. Barack Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he picked her. She is a symbol of Hispanic aspirations in a country where Hispanics are an increasingly powerful political force. She’s known for her ferocious drive and work ethic and, despite what you may hear, she appears to be a moderate. She represents the American dream in action. The Republicans hate her.
Sarah Palin was the most scarily incompetent vice-presidential nominee in the history of the United States. She graduated from the University of Idaho, where she majored in communications (still not her strong suit). She represents the Peter Principle in action. The Republicans love her.
Talk about a warped value system.
Did you check out who is leading the questioning. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, admirer of the KKK, labeller of the NAACP as a “commie” organization, You see, Sessions has deep empathy for the poor white male – so oppressed in our society.(lol) Everybody else? Not so much, The perfect embodiment of the GOP. I LMAO at the mistakes he made at the confirmation session today.
Fresh WaterJuly 15th, 2009 - 2:11 am
@ Marc Sanford: you’re one of those ordinary lying Leftists who use false statements about the so-called boogey-man-white-man-capitalist-conservative inorder to foment riots by the so-called “poor and underprivileged.”
Sessions, for starters, in addressing just a few of your disgusting lies, DOES NOT “ADMIRE…the KKK” and the NAACP *is* a Marxist/Communist organization, which, I am willing to reasonably guess, you are, too.
You can laugh all you want at the rest of us, so does Castro, so does Chavez, so do the drug ‘lords’ in South and Central America and their associates, gangs in the U.S.A.
But it’s you who is the fool who more reverent people don’t laugh at, we just evaluate you by the lies you declare and we loathe you. But first, we feel sorry for you.
What WOULD Castro do without all that money from North America? What WOULD their Marxist politics do without all that opportunity made available to them by Capitlism (and Capitalists)? Marxism only functions when it has functional people to abuse.
Your abuse begins with lies and other hyperbolic imaginings designed to agitate others based upon fears. Watch out, the boogey-men-Capitalists just might help you make a profit in your miserable, Leftist, Socialist worker’s miserable antiparadise.
Fresh WaterJuly 15th, 2009 - 2:17 am
Hey, Marc Sanford, you lying Marxist, the KKK was started by Democrats to try to ridicule Conservatives. Democrats actually formulated this sort of “high theatre” assuming that what they did under the pretense of the KKK would be interpreted by the public as “Conservatives” acting badly (and it was and that’s been accomplished by lying Marxists encouraging that misinformation).
The KKK — as testified before Congress, it’s written history, sworn to and witnessed — was started by the Democrat Party to retaliate against “uppity Blacks” they deemed to be so (to be “uppity”) who had flocked to the GOP, and particularly as to the Texas GOP which originally was founded by Blacks in Texas who opposed the lying Democrats.
The lying Democrats also gave our nation slavery, wanted to protect and continue slavery and who, it seems if history tells us anything at all, have as their party characteristic that they lie and cheat if they do anything at all.
The Democrats started the KKK and kept it going inorder to harm Blacks to make them afraid to exercise themselves politically, as they were mostly doing as Republicans before all the Democrats’ lying lies about who the KKK was.
It’s a fact: the KKK was a Democratic Party happening created by Democrats in response to their underlying Marxist need to ridicule Republicans, among them at that time, many Blacks.
Fresh WaterJuly 15th, 2009 - 2:26 am
By the way, s l a v e r y existed in “the North” just as it did in “the South.” And Lincoln did not oppose it, not before or during most of the Civil W a r, which was fought over resources, not over s l a v e r y == the South had resources, the North wanted them, the South wanted to be paid fairly for what the North wanted, the North didn’t want to pay fairly, the South rebelled.
Lincoln only came around to his position opposing s l a v e r y after the W a r was proven to be thoroughly brutal and up to that point, largely looked like the North would lose it. Lincoln needed more soldiers for the North so he declared that Blacks (most of whom were s l a v e r y , even in the North) would and could serve in the military, and the rest of history developed from there.
Lincoln actually tried to pass legislation at the end of the Civil W a r , by which all “freed s l a v e r y ” could be transported back to Africa. He tried to set up a relocation process paid for by the U.S. government that would send all freed s l a v e r y , N e g r o e s most all of them at that time, back to where they originated.
It failed to happen because most of the “freed s l a v e r y ” did not want to go back to Africa, deeming their lives in the U.S. (in North America) to be better than they’d known back in Africa. So Lincoln abandoned his push to get his program going.
The end to s l a v e r y in the U.S. only came about just before the end of the Civil W a r because the North needed more soldiers. It was not a social-motivation by Lincoln, originally, to end s l a v e r y for any other reason and he actually declared that it didn’t bother him so much as it remained a problem or issue that each state should work out for themselves.
RobertoKJuly 15th, 2009 - 9:57 am
She didn’t “defend” her “wise Latina” remark, she “DENIED” it. Are Liberals really that stupid that they think their lies are seen for what they are?
HEY DUMBA$$!!! 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.” THAT’S THE WHOLE QOUTE, NO TWIST, NO SPIN!
YOU’RE THE LIBO BA$STARD THAT JUST TWISTED WHAT SHE SAID: “A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.” SHE NEVER SAID THAT, DUMBA$$!
THAT’S NOT WHAT SHE FVCKING SAID! QUOTE THE WHOLE D4MNED SENTENCE CORRECTLY YOU BA$TARD! YOU FVCKING HYPOCRITE! ASK WHY SHE SAID WHAT SHE DID ABOUT WHITE MALES!
Her answer is irrelevant because the DUMA$$ didn’t include the main point in his question. Fvcking Libtard.