it's Sotomayor

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I have a last name that can be pronounced at least two different ways, maybe three. It's Croatian, but people think it's Russian or Polish. I correct them all the time, and sometimes not. I didn't think I was being arrogant when I pronounced it for them. How many have I offended? :sad:
 
I have a last name that can be pronounced at least two different ways, maybe three. It's Croatian, but people think it's Russian or Polish. I correct them all the time, and sometimes not. I didn't think I was being arrogant when I pronounced it for them. How many have I offended? :sad:

I have a Croatian last name too, courtesy of my Dad. :)
 
I must have been arrogant even when I was the right nationality. :sad:

:lol:

Honestly, I understand the concept of adaptability as an immigrant, but I don't really think that there is a "Spanish sounding" pronunciation of her name, there is just her bloody name, period.

I'm more concerned about yuppie parents who spell "normal" names in such ways that they're almost pronounceable, lest their children be "unique."
 
oh no, it looks like she may have ties to radical separatist groups

Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'

11:20 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs


President Obama Announces Sonia Sotomayor As His Supreme Court Nominee

As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.

Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.
 
Seems like everyone has those ties these days...

Palin had ties, Perry has ties, all these patriotic Americans apparently have ties to people that want to leave...
 
This is almost better than the gay chick. :corn:


i know, right? the "generalized disapproval" of "Mexicans" -- read: Mexicans, Central Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, etc. -- is far more widespread and is actually a greater source of racist panic in this country than is the fear of homosexual recruitment by powerful lesbians and sneaky, stealthy gay priests and teachers and boy scout leaders.

it's astonishing to me how her nomination is now just about race. or at least it is about the NOT RACIST conservative white males.

as if it never occurred to anyone that Bush may well have selected his SCOTUS nominees on the basis of race and gender.

and people wonder why people of color tend to laugh at the concept of a "colorblind" society. the only people who are never judged on their color tend to be white people, and tend to be white males as well. no one questions your qualifications as a white male, but if there's, say, an eminently qualified Puerto Rican woman who went to Princeton (and graduated summa cum laude) and then Yale Law and is as qualified as absolutely anyone else, THEN we say, "she was picked because she was a woman! because she's a puerto rican! obviously!"

does it not occur to these critics that most of the elderly white male heterosexual protestants have received preferential treatment far more ingrained and institutionalized than whatever Ms. Sotomayor may or may not have achieved? do we really think that GWB would have gotten into Yale and Harvard had he not been surname Bush? if he had been a poor Puerto Rican girl born in the projects in the Bronx, would he have wound up president any way?

it actually really pisses me off. and how there's been affirmative action for most of the people in power in this country. i went to a prestigious liberal arts college that accepts fewer than 20% of it's applicants. a good friend of mine was a legacy. he was smart, good grades and scores and all that, but what lifted him in was the legacy. his father, who's in his 60s, who's precisely the same age as, say, Sen. Sessions or Gingrich, didn't even have to formally apply when he was an undergrad. the principal of his private high school simply called the Dean of Admissions and said, "i've got a kid who would make a good fit." and boom, done. he was accepted. and let's not forget the fact that many of these schools were all-male until the late 1960s or even 1970s. this is not that long ago. and, to compound matters, and as seen in the grades of GWB (and Gore, and Kerry), there is no way anyone coasts along on the "Gentleman's C" anymore and then still glides into, say, Penn Law in the way that it was possible now 40 years ago.

it just drives me crazy, how Ms. Sotomayor will be forced to prove her worth in a way that we'd never, ever ask of Roberts or Alito.

as for the single quote that has been brought up by INDY and Newt, all that she was saying is that experience as an outsider can often inform one's outlook and likely it can breed precisely the type of empathy that Obama is talking about. and what's he talking about? the fact that a judge knows exactly what it is like to be the subject of laws that are often applied disproportionately to minorities. example: how much more severely crack is viewed than regular cocaine.

it's really not that offensive a thing, and it's really not that crazy a thing. it's something that universities have been pushing for years, and businesses as well. why are both such seemingly opposite things so obsessed with diversity? because, in the classroom, the diversity of background makes for a richer, more complex classroom dynamic especially in the humanities, and in the board room, the diversity of background makes it easier to sell whatever products to whatever group of people. i don't think it's at all unreasonable to think that a poor Puerto Rican girl from the projects is going to have a slightly different take on the world than a third-generation Princeton legacy from Greenwich, CT. and while that doesn't act as a qualifier, per se, upon reaching a basic level of qualification, which Ms. Sotomayor certainly has achieved, it might become a distinctive quality upon which a final decision is made.
 
as if it never occurred to anyone that Bush may well have selected his SCOTUS nominees on the basis of race and gender.

Why use Bush when you've got better.

Ronald Reagan:

Within the guidelines of excellence, appointments can carry enormous symbolic significance. This permits us to guide by example, to show how deep our commitment is and to give meaning to what we profess.

One way I intend to live up to that commitment is to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court.

I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all my appointments.

It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists. I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench.

But it's the evil libruls that are about identity politics. :blahblah:
 
I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a male who hasn't lived that life. -- Ronald Reagan
 
I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a male who hasn't lived that life. -- Ronald Reagan

What a sexist pig.
 
I would hope that a wise Catholic with the richness of their experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Protestant or Jew who hasn't lived that life.

Ronald Reagan:
Within the guidelines of excellence, appointments can carry enormous symbolic significance. This permits us to guide by example, to show how deep our commitment is and to give meaning to what we profess.

One way I intend to live up to that commitment is to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court.

I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all my appointments.

It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists. I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench.


This is the problem with documenting history. It's too easy to point out hypocrisy...
 
What a sexist pig.



the difference, of course, is that Republicans are colorblind and genderblind, and they're not beholden to special interest groups and they don't measure individuals on the basis of anything beyond their resume and demonstrated competence.

therefore, when they nominate women and minorities to things, it's because they truly do deserve it and not because they're pandering for votes from angry blocks of the population who have been shackled by the welfare system of dependency. Republicans nominate those who have stood on their own two feet and told us all that it doesn't matter if they're a female or a person of color, or both (but not gay, of course), anyone can succeed in America, because when Republicans are in charge, people rise and fall on the basis of merit alone.







a-wink-and-sarah-palins-a-winner-415x275.jpg
 
Why use Bush when you've got better.

Ronald Reagan:



But it's the evil libruls that are about identity politics. :blahblah:

Er, no, see the difference is that conservatives make appointments based on merit - including people from minorities - but don't run around seeking pats on the back for so doing in the way that liberals do. It's the hypocrisy and holier than thou attitudes that some liberals adopt that pisses off us conservatives.

As I've pointed out before, the Bush cabinet featured a lot of racial diversity but no-one ever made a big deal of it.

Clinton appointed an out lesbian to a very senior role to appease the far left, unfortunately she proved to be a disaster.
 
Er, no, see the difference is that conservatives make appointments based on merit - including people from minorities - but don't run around seeking pats on the back for so doing in the way that liberals do. It's the hypocrisy and holier than thou attitudes that some liberals adopt that pisses off us conservatives.

As I've pointed out before, the Bush cabinet featured a lot of racial diversity but no-one ever made a big deal of it.

Clinton appointed an out lesbian to a very senior role to appease the far left, unfortunately she proved to be a disaster.




a-wink-and-sarah-palins-a-winner-415x275.jpg
 
I really think Reagan appointing the first woman to ever sit on the Supreme Court is more historical and praise worthy.
Especially when you take into account her voting record.
 
I really think Reagan appointing the first woman to ever sit on the Supreme Court is more historical and praise worthy.
Especially when you take into account her voting record.



but the important thing to remember is that when conservatives do it, it's because they are the "most qualified" person for the job. :up:


Clarence_Thomas_official.jpg




liberals only nominate and then vote for minorities out of guilt.


barack_obama_thumb.jpg
 
Republicans Divided Over How to Attack Sotomayor

Republicans are battling each other over how to attack President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, because of fears that Hispanic voters will revolt against her opponents at the polls.

Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court, is posing a conundrum for Republicans who are struggling to unite against a woman they presume will be a reliable vote for liberal causes.

The GOP doesn't want to give Sotomayer a free ride, because they believe she is a judicial activist who will legislate from the bench.

But they're also concerned that if they launch a no-holds barred attack on Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to be nominated to the court, they risk alienating a growing minority they want on their side in the voting booth.

The White House warned earlier this week that detractors should be careful as they scrutinize Sotomayor's record and background.

"It is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Elected Republican officials have heeded that warning so far, holding fire as they continue to dig into the judge's past.

But two unelected Republican stalwarts, Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, haven't been as restrained. They have labeled Sotomayor a "reverse racist" for saying in a speech in 2001 that she hopes 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."

Their comments have drawn pushback from Republican elected officials and other commentators.

"I think it's terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told National Public Radio on Thursday.

"Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials," Cornyn said. "I just don't think it's appropriate and I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told CNN that he disagrees with Gingrich.

"Frankly, I think it is a little premature and early, because she hasn't had a chance to explain some of these comments that she has made," Hatch said.

"I think we have to be fair. I think we have to do what is normally done, and that is scrutinize the record, look at the opinions, the unwritten opinions, the articles, the speeches, the various comments that have been made and so forth, and do it fairly."

In her Wall Street Journal column on Friday, conservative commentator Peggy Noonan panned Gingrich for twittering that Sotomayor should withdraw because a white judicial nominee would have to if he made a similar statement on race.

"Does anyone believe that?" Noonan wrote. "[Gingrich] should rest his dancing thumbs, stop trying to position himself as the choice and voice of the base in 2012, and think."

She urged Republicans to act like grownups as they challenge Sotomayor's nomination, which she called a "brilliant political pick" because the GOP has struggled to attract and retain Hispanics and women, and because Sotomayor's rags-to-riches story is so moving.

"Politically she's like a beautiful doll containing a canister of poison gas: Break her and you die," Noonan wrote.

Noonan questioned the wisdom of critics who want to use an attack on Sotomayor as a way to excite the base.

"Excite the base? How about excite a moderate, or interest an independent?" she wrote. "How about gain the attention of people who aren't already on your side?"
.
 
Noonan questioned the wisdom of critics who want to use an attack on Sotomayor as a way to excite the base.

"Excite the base? How about excite a moderate, or interest an independent?" she wrote. "How about gain the attention of people who aren't already on your side?"

This.
 
Er, no, see the difference is that conservatives make appointments based on merit

I think you'd like to think that this is the difference.

Condoleezza Rice was a disaster.

Sonia Sotomayor is as meritocratic as you can get. But I guess she ended up graduating 2nd in her class at Princeton because she was a Latina.
 
Sonia Sotomayor is as meritocratic as you can get. But I guess she ended up graduating 2nd in her class at Princeton because she was a Latina.



it's clear that the only way a poor girl from the Bronx could do that would be if her grades were inflated by liberal professors who felt the crushing weight of historical guilt.
 
When Bush picked Harriet Miers, all I could think was "well at least he picked her based on merit and not outright fucking cronyism"
 
Glenn Beck posted a classy twittee update about Sotomayor's diabetes. :down:

Glenn Beck: Can Messiah Obama Heal Sotomayor's Diabetes? | TPMDC


The guy's a real class act. He made sure he informed the world(his little world) that a comedian had made a joke about Rush's health and how that was crossing the line. He made sure to point out that liberals are all really just mean heartless people underneath.


But that was last week, maybe he hopes we all have as short of a memory as he does :shrug:
 
Although it should be noted, Bush isn't much of a conservative.
He was sort of just the caricature and not much else.

But it's hard to pass up the Harrier Miers reference.

I will say, that conservatives with a brain are more principled on such things.
Bush 41 appointed Souter and Sotomayor. Maybe hs staff was fucking up but perhaps the fact that he wasn't just a Jesus Conservative meant he was able to stay with his principles instead of forced by magic to be ignorant on certain things.

ETA
What I mean is, Bush 41 didn't seem to have a litmus test of XYZ on certain issues, so he just picked on certain principles, which meant he 'apparently' made some political mistakes in his appointments.
 
When Bush picked Harriet Miers, all I could think was "well at least he picked her based on merit and not outright fucking cronyism"



this is true. why?

1. she is white
2. she was picked by a conservative (which negates the whole "she's a woman" thing)

thus, we can rightly conclude that she was selected out of merit, and nothing else.
 
ETA
What I mean is, Bush 41 didn't seem to have a litmus test of XYZ on certain issues, so he just picked on certain principles, which meant he 'apparently' made some political mistakes in his appointments.

I don't think this is really true.

It certainly doesn't ring true with respect to Souter.

First of all, Souter was nominated as a replacement to maybe the most leftist justice on the SCOTUS of all time, and Bush 41 most certainly aimed for as large a shift to the right as he could. Second, if you look at the confirmation process, there was really very little in Souter's past. He came in as a very young justice and without a caseload that could properly be ascertained for leaning. In short, the conservatives took a gamble on this guy (it was absolutely political) and lost.

The fact that he turned out different than they expected isn't a testament to how principled Bush 41 was.

But generally speaking, he was far more pragmatic in his approach than his son, that much is true.
 
Back
Top Bottom