Click picture for full size --- Click envelope icon to share with friendsNoted political historian and diaper-model Al Franken declared Sonia Sotomayor "the most experienced Supreme Court Nominee in 100 years." Strong praise coming from the least experienced of 100 senators. Meanwhile, Sotomayor is fielding softball questions...unlike conservative Judge Clarence Thomas who (despite being a minority) was demonized by Democrats in his confirmation hearings and asked if he rented "Long Dong Silver" porn videos, or placed his pubic hair on a can of coke.
8 comments:
I remember the awful questioning of Clarence Thomas.
I have a black friend who has since moved away...but she once told me that "black" goes far past skin color. As a Christian conservative, blacks would tell her that she was actually "white" or "acting white" and thus she was not accepted as "black".
So not only do you have to be a minority to get your way in America, you have to be a LIBERAL minority. That's the string attached.
Race is simply the preferred weapon that liberals use in their ideological war. Otherwise they'd be more interested in maximizing opportunity instead of encouraging a mindset of victimization.
I couldn't agree with you more, Stilt. I'm not white and these people don't represent me at all.
Victimization is probably the worst thing happened to our community in the last decades. We pay now for these silly victimization politics.
Philip, the whole issue of victimization drives me nuts, because the same people who take political advantage of it also use that political power to keep people down. As long as minorities can't get access to school vouchers to educate their children, or are told that affirmative action is necessary because there's no other way to compete, we'll know that the politicians aren't sincere about lifting ALL people up.
Similarly, the notion that only Blacks can represent Blacks, only Hispanics can represent Hispanics, only women can represent women (etc) seems to reinforce the very worst notions of ethnic and gender stereotypes. And isn't that what we should all be fighting?
I'm a reasonably old coot at this point; I remember Dr. King's last speech, and I remember the world in which he gave it. I believed in his message then and I believe in it now...but oh, how his vision has been corrupted by these alleged "leaders."
Oops - sorry. I seem to have been standing on my soapbox. Again.
About what you've said Stilt, I say Amen !
But Clarence Thomas in fact did rent porn movies and made remarks about pubic hair in front of staff, which made them uncomfortable. And Sotomayor is in fact the most qualified nominee in terms of judicial experience in 100 years. And do you think that if the Republicans had had any dirt at all on Sotomayor they wouldn't have used it? On the other hand, we can agree that Al Franken isn't the most experienced of senators.
Joe, thanks for the comments. Anita Hill's testimony against Clarence Thomas was frequently self-contradictory and was almost certainly politically motivated. The years since the hearings, with Thomas in the public eye, give us cause for even greater skepticism about the inflammatory testimony.
Regading Sotomayor, it's interesting that you suggest that if Republicans had "dirt" on her, they would have used it. Actually, confirmation hearings shouldn't be about whether or not there's "dirt," but whether or not the nominee is suitably experienced to deserve a lifetime position on our nation's highest court. And it's to the Republican's credit that that's how they conducted themselves in the hearings.
Sotomayor, far from being the most experienced in 100 years, lacked the experience - or perhaps the desire - to recognize that the Ricci discrimination case deserved its day in court. Despite the too-close 5 to 4 final ruling of the court, all 9 of the current Supreme Court justices agreed that the case needed to be heard. The fact that Sotomayor can't recognize a Supreme Court case when it's literally in her lap suggests she's not up to the job.
Post a Comment