More About Sotomayor (So-Toe-My-Or)
Conservatives are discovering more details on Sotomayor as the days tick on. She is quite an accomplished woman and had been on the fast track to becoming a leading national judge (at least by the pace at which she was moving up the ranks). However, she already had various critics back in 1997 like Rush Limbaugh who saw her coming a mile away and knew she could one day be nominated for SCOTUS. Limbaugh, in 1997, warned listeners that this woman was extremely progressive and liberal in her judgments and leanings.
The president of the National Organization of Women (NOW) has even made an official statement that Sonia is in fact “very progressive.”
The Republicans in the senate are focusing on Sotomayor’s speech that she gave at the University of California, Berkeley (School of Law) back in 2001. Her lecture at Berkeley was published in La Raza Journal, which made a blatant racist remark when comparing one race over another as to which of those races would make better decisions. 29 Republicans in 1998, when Sotomayor was nominated for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, voted against her for this very reason, as well as her tendency to legislate and be an activist from the bench.
For a little more information on the extremism of La Raza go here.
Newt Gingrich has been on the attack with this one nomination and it is something he apparently feels very strongly about – it may have to do with the history of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals when she was nominated back in 1998 while Newt was still Speaker of the House. Newt has called Sonia Sotomayor an outright racist and has asked for her to withdraw her name from the SCOTUS nod.
I personally think that when it comes to measuring somebody’s merit and ability – personal feelings aside, what really matters is their record - and this final detail that has come to fruition is incredibly important. Her opinions have a 60% reversal rate…
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.
“Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
The most frustrating aspect of this entire nomination is the media playing it up to be the first ever Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court – which just isn’t true. We could go back in history and technically find that Cardozo per the article yesterday, was the first, but even if that is questionable there is Miguel Estrada, who was nominated by a Republican and was a Conservative. Democrats did not care about his remarkable history, growing up in Honduras and legally immigrating to the United States without being able to speak English and breaking through barriers to go to Columbia University and then onto Harvard Law School. The Democrats demoralized this man because he was a Conservative and didn’t fit the Conservative mold – he had to be destroyed – the same thing happened to Clarence Thomas – another from humble beginnings, who was a black man and a Conservative. We could go back through time, but why? We had an example of this very thing with the past election; Sarah Palin. A female who came from the lower middle class, if that, who had to pay her way through college, lived in a state that truly is the last frontier, and still isn’t all that developed, worked her way up politically by working hard and never giving up. But to liberals, a Female, a Black, and a Hispanic should only be democrats, not republicans – those who go against the mold need to be destroyed before anyone else; they are the biggest threats. The liberals want to make this nomination into this historically wonderful thing, bamboozling the dumbed down masses, attempting to brainwash them into thinking that Sonia truly is the first of her kind to be nominated, when that is an out and out lie. Ann Coulter talks about this in greater detail on Good Morning America.
Supreme Court Skeptical of Preserving Voting Rights Act
I better get all my posts in quick – since the bandwidth on the Internet is running out!
So with that – there is some hope on the horizon and some sanity that may kick in regarding the Voting Rights Act:
The fate of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act looked to be in doubt Wednesday as Supreme Court justices questioned whether the Southern states still need special supervision to prevent them from discriminating against black voters.
“Are Southerners more likely to discriminate than Northerners?” asked a skeptical Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Is the “sovereignty of Georgia” entitled to less respect than “the sovereign dignity of Ohio? . . . Does the United States take that position today?” asked Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, pressing a lawyer for the Justice Department who was defending the Voting Rights Act.
The Voting Rights Act is a form of discrimination based upon regionalism at this point. It makes Southern states feel as though they are children who need to be supervised and are not as decent and dignified as Northern states. The South continues to retain the label of racist, years after Jim Crow laws were abolished, African-Americans received the right to vote and could physically vote, and schools are all integrated. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t heard of any lynchings, assaults or cross burnings that were incited by racism since I was born (80′s). Times have changed and this is an incessant grudge and resentment held by a specific ideological party, further repressing their own constituents by playing into this propaganda. The liberals only want this type of legislation because it helps them get votes.
The comments and questions during an hourlong argument suggested that a majority of the justices were prepared to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This provision requires many Southern states, counties and school districts to get approval from the Justice Department before making changes in their election rules. These rules range from the location of polling places to the makeup of districts in state legislatures.
The provision also applies to a few counties in Northern California, New York and elsewhere that have a high percentage of residents who do not speak English.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether this special Southern-only “pre-clearance” provision was still needed. “Why didn’t [Congress] extend Section 5 to the entire country?” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Exactly Justice Alito! This is reminiscent of the hate speech and hate crime legislation where only specific groups are protected and I guess “the south” would not be considered a group discriminated against. It would only seem fair that all states or none would have to comply with this Section 5 stipulation. It’s incredibly discriminatory to segregate one specific group.
Like Roberts and Kennedy, he voiced doubt about whether Congress had sufficient reason in 2006 for singling out the South for special supervision for another 25 years. In the past, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also have voiced skepticism about the reach of this provision.
Another 25 years? The South isn’t the Jim Crow South anymore, nor are we living in the 1950′s/60′s!
Neal Katyal, the Obama administration’s deputy solicitor general, called the law and Section 5 “a landmark achievement” that deters schemes to violate the rights of minorities.
At this point there is so much legislation to help minorities that other groups are overlooked. And what has any of this legislation actually done over the last 45 years? If anything, inner cities and liberal bastions have gotten worse. Minorities are helped by welfare, by affirmative action (which by itself is racist legislation – ask Ward Connerly), and there are specific crimes that exist that an African-American cannot be prosecuted for based on race. The more we pay attention to race the more racism exists – plain and simple. I’m getting so sick and tired of all this race baiting and all of this group segregation, all in the name of political expediency, to win votes and keep others oppressed, who don’t know any better.
Debo Adegbile, a lawyer for the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People’s Legal Defense Fund, agreed. He said Congress and the court should “stay the course” and continue the effort to root out subtle discrimination that disadvantages minorities. If Section 5 were struck down, “the discrimination will return,” he predicted.
Subtle discrimination? What is subtle discrimination? You can misconstrue a look or a smirk or anything as subtle discrimination if you want by playing the race card. You can spin anything you want in order to accuse another of racism. How about we mention the percentage of blacks who voted for Obama? Was that not racist? 96% of the entire black community voted for Obama. Howard Stern asked black men and women from Harlem who they were voting for and in so doing he switched John McCain’s platforms and even the VP candidate of Sarah Palin and paired it with Obama. They didn’t know the difference… that should tell you something. What about those of us who have lived in inner cities as a Caucasian? Have we not experienced subtle discrimination or racism? As a white female I don’t have any rights when it comes to that… I don’t think getting called a “white cracker b*tch” is PC.
But both advocates were met with steadily skeptical questions from the court’s conservatives.
Roberts noted that Massachusetts had a lower rate of registering Latino voters than Texas. “Why didn’t Congress extend the act to Massachusetts?” he asked.
Great point Roberts!
The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited any voting discrimination based on race, is often cited as one of most effective and far-reaching laws of the 20th century. Until then, most blacks in the South could not vote — not because of laws against voting — but because voting rolls were controlled by county registrars. And they used many schemes to prevent blacks from registering and casting ballots.
Yes, this happened but that was nearly 45 years ago – much has changed and this doesn’t exist any longer.
If the Supreme Court were to strike down Section 5, the decision would not necessarily affect the remainder of the Voting Rights Act. Discrimination against minority voters would still be illegal, but the onus would be on the Justice Department and private lawyers to bring suits to challenge discriminatory practices.
In Alabama’s Dallas County, where Selma is the county seat, only 156 blacks among 15,000 black adults were registered to vote in the early 1960s .
This figure was cited in a brief to the court by Alabama’s Republican Gov. Bob Riley to show how things have changed. Now, about 73% of blacks and whites are registered to vote in Alabama, he said, and blacks make up one-fourth of the Legislature, matching the percentage of the black population.
Yes, and please look at the number of House representatives from the South that are represented by minorities and most specifically black men and women.
He and other Southern officials said the schemes to prevent blacks from voting have been abolished, and therefore the “pre-clearance” section is outdated.
The challenge to the law arose from an unlikely locale. The Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District in Texas does not register voters, nor has it been accused of discrimination. It is a suburban community that elects members to a water board. But because of Section 5, it had to ask the Justice Department for its approval before it moved the voting location from a private home to a public school.
Gregory Coleman, a former Texas solicitor general, filed a suit on behalf of the district challenging the law as unconstitutional. He argued that the provision of the Voting Rights Act was entirely justified in 1965 but not so today. “Times have changed,” he said, but the Southern states still wear a “badge” accusing them of racism.
In his brief to the court, he cited the historic election of President Obama as evidence that the nation has come a long way since 1965, but he did not repeat that argument Wednesday.
One would think that after the election of Obama that race relations would have been resolved, but instead they get much worse – oh the irony.
Obama Wants to Reduce Sentences for Crack Users
I’m not kidding:
The Obama administration joined a federal judge Wednesday in urging Congress to end a racial disparity by equalizing prison sentences for dealing and using crack versus powdered cocaine.
Yes, the only ones who continue to harp on race are the Democrats; leading to the entitlement, hand-out mentality of so many specific demographics and groups. Maybe Obama is just partial to crack since it was a drug he used to partake in along with cocaine…
“Jails are loaded with people who look like me,” U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, an African-American, told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing.
I wonder why Reggie? Crack is a cheap version of Coke and it is sold in poorer communities which include inner cities and it is a fact that many inner city communities consist of minorities. Have you ever been to a rehab Reggie? I hate to burst your bubble but there are plenty of poor white males and females who also use crack because they can’t afford cocaine. It’s also a fact that those who partake in crack commit other crimes, more so than a cocaine user, typically bought and used by those who are middle or upper middle class. Cocaine is also used on an occasional level by various people. Cocaine and crack are both addictive but crack tends to be more addictive and harder to kick than cocaine.
Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said the administration believes Congress’ goal “should be to completely eliminate the disparity” between the two forms of cocaine. “A growing number of citizens view it as fundamentally unfair,” Breuer testified.
What’s unfair is not understanding what else is going on behind these sentences and how these sentences came to be longer than those of cocaine in the first place. I am inclined to believe that the history and trends of those arrested for crack were repeat offenders and also had more than one criminal offense on their record.
Durbin said more than 81 percent of those convicted for crack offenses in 2007 were African-American, although only about 25 percent of crack cocaine users are African Americans.
I will repeat what I said above, a lot of crack use is in the inner cities and unfortunately, the African-American community heavily populates inner cities. I would like to find out the race of the dealers who sell crack to these parts of the city. I am almost positive you will find more black on black crime. So how is this racist? Crime rates of inner cities, which are heavily Democrat, mind you, consistently have the highest crime rates and have larger minority populations. Most of the crime that occurs in Baltimore is black on black crime, gang crime, drug crime etc. Many of these criminals and drug offenders have wrap sheets a mile long. This isn’t a racist thing – this is a failed policy thing. The black community has been suckered into believing that Democrats care and that their policies work, but their war on poverty, welfare, etc. has damaged the minority community and hurt their nuclear families. Crack isn’t racist as he stipulates above since only 25% of crack users are black so why would you think that sentences would also be racist? I would say check their records and see what other crimes they have committed and then let me know who and what is racist.
“This administration believes our criminal laws should be tough, smart, fair,” Breuer said, but also should “promote public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system.”
If the Administration is really concerned about being fair then why not make the cocaine sentences just as long as the crack sentences to shut everyone up. It would be worse to lessen sentences of those who use drugs and most likely have a problem than risk putting them back on the street to engage in more criminal activity sooner. Many prisons have great rehabilitation programs and NA and AA meetings that are brought into the jail or detention centers. Any addict or alcoholic knows that the only way a person can ever change their behavior is by wanting to change themselves and be willing enough to follow 12 simple steps. This is typical liberal enabling which only hinders recovery and help for those addicted to government, to drugs, etc. It’s the same concept and I wish that people would just realize that…
The Obama administration is also seeking to increase drug treatment, as well as rehabilitation programs for felons after they’re released from prison.
Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge advocate for rehab programs, but these programs will be paid for by the taxpayers, and if you know any addicts or alcoholics, they cannot be forced to change if they are not ready. This is my concern – there are many repeat offenders that come right out of jail because they still aren’t quite ready to change nor have they completely hit “rock bottom.” They have been away from everyday life for so long (going from prison to rehab) they don’t know what to do with themselves if they go back to their home towns or cities. It is always recommended to go to half-way homes immediately after rehabilitation, but even so, the real world can cause major setbacks for those who aren’t ready to completely change their lives.
I also want to point out that other drugs such as heroin and crystal meth are used more in poorer white communities, but does this get mentioned anywhere in this article – what are the sentences for those drugs?
Maybe Obama should go back to smoking the Hope Bong:
Think What We Think…Or Else!
This is just too disturbing and it’s a horrible sign of what is going on at universities across the nation.
The irony is that by enforcing policies that create conformists, shape people’s beliefs, and attempt to change values, opinions, and ideologies are, in fact, oppressive by their very nature and hinder freedom. Conservatives have always championed individual rights but get labeled by liberals as dittoheads or conformists. This labeling is amusing since liberals tend to require strength in numbers for their agendas and force those opinions and issues on others through indoctrination and the media. Liberal’s policies struggle to hold up to scrutiny and hard facts. Group think is common amongst liberals and it’s incredibly obvious when you look at party divides. Right leaning people will tend to argue with one another because they champion individualism so much. They don’t all have the same opinions or ideas and it sometimes causes splits inside the overarching party as we have seen lately. This does not happen as often with Liberals who conform and champion the entire group and don’t rock the boat.
By creating agendas that label specific groups by race, religion, and sexuality – they are exacerbating racism and bigotry. I hope that one day people will wake up and realize that separating out groups and tagging people is, by its very nature, racist and prejudiced. To get past any divides that may still exist, we need to treat people as individuals, not groups.
Visit www.THEFIRE.org for more information on universities across the country and see where yours ranks.
