Regards

name

Regards

name

No one has come up with anything in Judge Sotomayor's opinions that smacks of racism. It's possible that there may be genuine issues of her suitability which arise as her record is examined, but I think racism is a false issue that has been too easily bandied about by white men of privilege in the early dialogue about this nomination.

That really isn't the case — that's more about being against the other group. Sotomayor may have an “affinity” toward Latino women but not necessarily animosity toward people in other groups. But since the conservatives who criticize her do have such animosity they often project what they believe onto others, thus transforming public discourse into nothing more than a power struggle. (This is why I don't trust them with political power; they intend to use it for their exclusive benefit and assume that everyone else does the same.)

Thus blindness is virtuous, and the scriptures teach this, i.e. James writing about not giving a person a higher place of honor at a meeting based on wealth.

Not quite — this is a situation which is beyond law, since there is no law specifically prohibiting that behavior. That was James' point.

Again, I still contend that a justice is to do justice. If a law is unjust, as Jim Crow Laws were, the justice does well to rule that law as unjust in accord with the constitution and true justice. We agree. Man made laws are not necessarily just (including our constitution, thus the occasional need for amending.)

The recent blog here about prostitution is another great example. I would love to see Nevada's prostitution policies go before the Supreme Court so that true justice could be done.

I would disagree with your assertion that I have not read scriptures in context. Justice is to be blind, and thankfully so, injustice is always a result of justice not being blind and respecting one person above another. Empathy is not necessarily virtuous… it seems that nearly every person who has committed mass injustices against entire people groups did so b/c of empathy towards their own group. Thus blindness is virtuous, and the scriptures teach this, ie James writing about not giving a person a higher place of honor at a meeting based on wealth.

Thank you for the criticism, I honestly appreciate it.

You can enjoy the last word on this exchange.

If there is silence from the left the question will be, Were they duped by the Right or were they intimidated into silence by Obama.

Hardly. As I said, Gingrich pretty much means what he says, which is why he's still considered viable in the conservative movement.

Here is what all the libs are missing, we don't mind the Sotomayor pick. This is all a smoke screen. If the progressive activist groups look closer at her and have the guts to speak up (this includes SOJO) they will not like what they see. She is not going to be a consistent progressive vote. This is one case of identification politics that will work against the Dems.

To believe that you would have to subscribe to a false premise — that “liberals” are simply mirror images of the conservatives and act and react in identical ways. In fact they aren't, because liberals will accept incremental change and compromise and have never been “all-or-nothing,” which makes them easier to split — and also add to their numbers. (”True” liberals considered Bill Clinton, to give one example, a total sellout and leading Democrats deeply resented him but still supported him overwhelmingly considering the alternatives. Today he's somewhat popular even among some conservatives.)

Here is what all the libs are missing, we don't mind the Sotomayor pick. This is all a smoke screen. If the progressive activist groups look closer at her and have the guts to speak up (this includes SOJO) they will not like what they see. She is not going to be a consistent progressive vote. This is one case of identification politics that will work against the Dems.

As someone in the MSM, I dispute that. Gingrich has said a lot of controversial things but to my knowledge never accused the press of misquoting him — which leads me to believe that he means what he says and says what he means. That's why, despite having little real constituency, he's still considered a leader in the conservative movement.

My point is it is unfair to search for some quote and then smear that person. What was the context? Did they misspeak? Were they having a bad day? What else have they said and done? In other words put the quote in context with their life. The right and left both do it all the time. As Christians we should rise above this no matter what are politics are. McClaren is so interested in tearing others down that he misses this.

BTW, I like the choice of Sotomayor. It could have been much worse. Obama chose the best Hispanic woman available. Liberals should be the ones complaining. Look at her record, she looks better then GHW Bush's picks.

In the movie “Cry Freedom,” the black activist said to the “liberal” white newspaper editor who had accused him of racism, “We know how you live — we cook your food, clean your rubbish. How would you like to see how we live — the 90 percent of your countrymen who have to get off your white streets at 6 o'clock at night?” Well, he did and subsequently found out just how ignorant he was.

Oh, and as for “professional race-baiters,” Rush also fits into that category — as does much of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. They're the only reason Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can stay in business.

It is unfair no matter what side uses the argument. This is something McClaren misses.

Jane when I stated she was a liberal replacing a liberal I did not mean she would be any means try to be unfair . Liberal Judges are not trying to ber unfair . Thier philospy is different . If you read past the “usual suspects”I call them , those who you could bet money would before any one Judge Obama picked you could bet money that they would be opposed to any Judge or vice a versa anyone would be acceptable just about . Whcih is why people here do not give that much credit to the bloggers here , its almost like is their anything this administration has done your concerned about ? I mean King David goofed up quite a bit . ;0)

I believe you will dind that her Judical philospy is mainstream Liberal . The organizations who are promoting the conservative snick are doing so because it plays better IMO to the folks in the middle . They say hey , she is conservative and liberal , she is fair. I am strange , ask my wife, ;0) but I don't see liberal , moderate , or conservative being intentionally unfair . A Judge from my perspective , in the way it works best in regards to the highest court needs to be impartial in regards if the good guys win or loose in a sense , they need to make sure the law is obeyed . The legislature and Executive branch are the ones who should be making policy and changing the laws . Checks and balances , I don't see 9 folks in robes being wiser then 454 or how many it is now who are suppose to be making our policy . Thats the problem with Judical policy making from my perspective . You haqve a non elected voice making policy based on their discernment . Not their discernment of the law only , but their discernment of the reprecussions of the policy . I rather trust 454 people on policy who have to face re election . I can trust 9 smarty pants on the law .

Of course where i can see me being wrong also , say allowing some racist methods of treating people that were over turned in the 50s and 60s . I think My Judical philopsy could have been used to not stop that racism , in fact racism can hide behide it nd I guess it has .

The recent court hearing in California may show my point , first the Judges say gay marriage is legal , Then the same court said with different circumstances that gay marriage is not legal . I would not say this court is moderate to liberal . They reached a decision under certain circumstances that could be said to support both sides , but each time they used a more liberal philospy to reach their conclussion .

They did the best they can , I just think Judges need to keep to the law , and allow the people to vote on things .

I am not so sure that this is true. As a “raving liberal” (my description of myself on Facebook), to me she seems quite conservative. I haven't done a huge amount of research, but it seems to me that her decisions come down squarely on the side of the status quo and the law as it is stated. I think she also served in corporate law., It seems to me that she can't be put in either a liberal or conservative box. I don't think we can label her.

Jane

I think the problem with the empathy tag that has followed her is that their is concern for rulings based on social justice and trying to make things even by looking at the whole picture from a certain perspective . I think that is the issue to most us here anyway . The example of Dred Scott is a decision I bring up because to us is pathetic . But according to law and Constitutional Law it was correct . The Civil War and Constitutional Amendments changed Constitutional law .
Our Constitution was designed so we the people would handle changing such laws . And we have been drastically slow in many areas . Hence the tempatation to politicize Judges . Too bad .

The lady is a American Success story in her personal life , she is a liberal replacing a liberal . Republicans must have nothing better to do these days , but I can think of trillions of things they should be paying attention to .

Wave I agree with you . I remember during the Alito hearings his wife actually leaving with tears in her eyes because of the racist claims based on idealogical mocking . Politics has been reduced to caricatures and making your opponent appear worse then dirt.

Yikes if this lady was my daughter , well I be older then dirt , but I would be very proud , who would not ? This almost ,has become like the old Saturday Night Fights . Based on rooting for the person based on perhaps more where they come from then any kind of knowledge of their real fighting abilities.