More importantly, will she be fair to working class whites of either gender? Or had you forgotten that we exist? Or even worse, do you really believe that “white privilege” bullshit?
Apparently you guys don’t really understand the concept of a Judge.
Sure – if a man whose views are shaped by his WASP heritage and prep-school beginnings can be, why not?
Yes, we must hunt down those horrible racists wherever they are. That’s absolutely our highest priority at any given time. Look under every bed, in every closet, and behind every bush. Make sure you get those big, bad racists.
Wrong.
Run out of straw yet?
Do you have anything of actual substance to say?
White fear is not about wanting people to be treated in an egalitarian manner. White fear is about protecting white empowerment. Many of the responses to Ms. Sotomayor’s one comment (which supposedly suggests that there is a possibility a Latina might know better) have had white fear at their core. Not a desire for egalitarian treatment of all people: on the contrary, a desire to protect the “fairness” that principally benefits rich, white people. People like Rush Limbaugh don’t want to see people who aren’t white have the same opportunities as people who are.
Maybe Rush isn’t really racist, who knows? But in the very least, he lacks the empathy to realize the myriad ways that “white privilege” is very, very real.
Are you really that naive?
Exactly, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
“Sharing characteristics” means sharing the same overwhelming financial and political power, and the same inability (all too often) to understand or even begin to contemplate the needs of different groups of people.
Ms. Sotomayor hasn’t denigrated anyone.
Apparently you don’t really understand the concept of activism.
No, I get it just fine, apparently you don’t.
If a judge is antagonistic to rich white men when the law is clearly on their side, then that person should not be a judge in the first place.
There is no valid counter argument.
Nor vice versa. Yet, remarkably, it sometimes happens anyway. Imagine that.
You’re arguing “should” rather than “is”. Not the same thing at all.
Can a man who doesn’t say his views are shaped by his Anglo-ameircan upbrinigng and priviledged beginnings make fair decisions when it comes to all races and social classes?
Yes, and that’s wrong.
A Judge should be judged on ‘should’ when being confirmed. But in terms of is there IS no valid counter-argument. There are counter-arguments, just not valid ones.
I’d have gone with “blindingly obvious,” myself. I mean, isn’t everyone influenced by their background?
It certainly looks like the Republicans’ days of drumming up outrage based on out-of-context quotes and innuendo are coming to a middle.
You go first.
I disagree.
“Because of my gender and ethnic heritage, I am capable of making better decisions than someone of a different gender and different ethnic heritage.” (paraphrasing, of course)
That’s a very troubling statement from a judge, regardless of which gender or ethnic heritage they are. Its not as if one particular gender or ethnic heritage combination renders that statement palatable, while other combinations make it offensive. It’s racist and sexist no matter what.
And not because of “white fear”, as you say.
Generally speaking, a paraphrase ought to resemble the original statement in some way.
Your “paraphrase” meaningfully alters the original. What you say she said, ain’t what she said. You’re setting up a nice little straw man there, with your mendacity.
Well, it’s a good thing that’s neither what she said nor meant.
The rest of your post is irrelevant.