Hot Air » Blog Archive » Oh my: Sotomayor made nearly identical “wise Latina” comment in 1994, too

Oh my: Sotomayor made nearly identical “wise Latina” comment in 1994, too

posted at 4:05 pm on June 3, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Leave it to Greg Sargent to conclude that the big scoop here is that no GOP senators pressed her on the earlier remark at her ‘98 appellate confirmation hearing, where the scrutiny’s normally a fraction as intense as it is for a SCOTUS appointment. The real significance, of course, is that it puts the lie to the White House’s feeble spin about how Sotomayor supposedly misspoke in 2001, a position the nominee herself has been forced to adopt even though people on her own side admit it’s nonsense. Evidently, the idea that her biology makes her a superior judge has been with her for decades. The only wrinkle: In 1994 she insisted it was her gender that made her “better” and by 2001 that notion had evolved to include race as well. Nice to know that her progressivism became more “sophisticated” over time.

Here’s what she said in the 1994 speech:

“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

Lindsey Graham met with her today and all but declared afterwards that he won’t vote for her, in full accordance with the precedent set by The One’s ideological jackassery when he voted to torpedo Roberts and Alito. As gratifying as that sort of payback is, though, the racial politics here are a lot different for Graham than they were for Obama. Prudence or principle? Exit question: Was Rush serious today when he said he’d support her if he had reason to believe she was pro-life? What possible reason aside from her faith (one that’s shared by countless of pro-choice Democrats) would we have to think that? Surely someone as invested in gender politics as our “wise woman” nominee isn’t going to disappoint NARAL.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »

Once a racist bigot, always a racist bigot.

tarpon on June 3, 2009 at 4:41 PM

She will not only bring empathy for hispanics and women, but she will serve as an advocate and inspiration for dumpy people, everywhere.

Star20
Ugly fat people have been ignored too long in this country!!!

Beside, hasn’t politics been called the Hollywood for ugly people.

E9RET on June 3, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Sorry for linking this again after last night in headlines, but I really would like to see her rank the various racial and ethnic groups, including women vs. men.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 3, 2009 at 4:43 PM

People who think themselves to be “wise” are ususally self-absorbed conceited fools.

infidel4life on June 3, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Will not those who she fragrantly showers with lies
Put a filibuster between her eyes?

PercyB on June 3, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Heh. Love it.

progressoverpeace on June 3, 2009 at 4:44 PM

With 60% of her rulings being overturned by the Supreme Court….I hardly think wise, is the appropriate word here.

capejasmine on June 3, 2009 at 4:47 PM

is Sotomayer the Left’s Souter?

ranchoforte on June 3, 2009 at 4:49 PM

With 60% of her rulings being overturned by the Supreme Court….I hardly think wise, is the appropriate word here.

capejasmine on June 3, 2009 at 4:47 PM

That’s my biggest point with her. If a college football coach lost 60% of his games would you ever hire him to coach your NFL team? That’s basically what’s going on here.

BadgerHawk on June 3, 2009 at 4:51 PM

The people will do whatever the one wants

tomas on June 3, 2009 at 4:52 PM

I’m half latina.

Let me be a SCJ

blatantblue on June 3, 2009 at 4:23 PM

You do know that Latina means woman?

If so, then I can only “assume” that you are midway through a sex change procedure?

Interesting.

Joe Bloggs on June 3, 2009 at 4:54 PM

With 60% of her rulings being overturned by the Supreme Court….I hardly think wise, is the appropriate word here.

capejasmine on June 3, 2009 at 4:47 PM

Hey, don’t mock. That’s a bit better than most weather forecasters!

SouthernGent on June 3, 2009 at 4:54 PM

The real significance, of course, is that it puts the lie to the White House’s feeble spin about how Sotomayor supposedly misspoke in 2001

Yeah, right… as if the context of the rest of her speech combined with her membership in La Raza combined with her ruling in the Ricci case hadn’t already done that.

FloatingRock on June 3, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Hey, don’t mock. That’s a bit better than most weather forecasters!

SouthernGent

At the end of the day, they’re always right…1…2….3….Okay, you can groan now.

E9RET on June 3, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Bishop on June 3, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Seriously, will she get a speech writer as a Justise? Is Harry Reid going to be disappointed at her writings if they are all worded the same except for some strategic fill in the blank areas?

Cindy Munford on June 3, 2009 at 5:01 PM

As gratifying as that sort of payback is, though, the racial politics here are a lot different for Graham than they were for Obama. Prudence or principle?

Why not try principle — just for a nice change? After all, Hispandering hasn’t worked out very well so far (cough . . . John McCain . . .cough), has it? The Republicans are never going to be able to out-Hispander Obama anyway, so what’s the point (other than irritating and alienating your party’s base, that is)?

AZCoyote on June 3, 2009 at 5:01 PM

MB4 on June 3, 2009 at 4:29 PM

Edison just stole all of his ideas from the Latina down the street. Everyone knows that.

progressoverpeace on June 3, 2009 at 4:31 PM

Hmmm. Either my comment that you referenced got sent to the corn filed or my watch has stopped.

MB4 on June 3, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Leave it to Greg Sargent to conclude that the big scoop here is that no GOP senators pressed her on the earlier remark at her ‘98 appellate confirmation hearing

Any fan of Justice Thomas might remember what then-Senator Joe Biden told Thomas right before he’s about to be confirmed to the Court of Appeals. From My Grandfather’s Son (page 201):

[Biden] informed me that I would be confirmed for the Court of Appeals, but that I could expect things to be very different if I were to be nominated to the Supreme Court… Now I began to suspect that my oppenents had been sending me a message: Don’t you dare think about the Supreme Court. What you’ve just been through was only a taste of what will happen if you do.

Who knows, maybe that’s the same plan-of-attack for the GOP. Maybe they’re saving all the good criticisms for the upcoming Borking of Sotomayor.

LastRick on June 3, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Yes, the Republicans need to follow the example of fair play and sportsmanship that was so successful in the run up to the last POTUS election. That worked well.

Heaven forbid we insult the entire Latino population of earth by suggesting that some quack who believes the US needs to be slammed in reverse in order to stick it to the Gringos and spread the rich culture from south of the border needs to get a lifetime handout somewhere else than the Supreme Court.

Hening on June 3, 2009 at 5:08 PM

Hmmm. Either my comment that you referenced got sent to the corn filed or my watch has stopped.

MB4 on June 3, 2009 at 5:03 PM

It’s gone. Odd. My reference is the only trace left.

progressoverpeace on June 3, 2009 at 5:08 PM

The days of 98-0 SCOTUS votes are over. The Dims saw fit to that in 2005. So we have to do the same.

Speedwagon82 on June 3, 2009 at 5:10 PM

It’s gone. Odd. My reference is the only trace left.

progressoverpeace on June 3, 2009 at 5:08 PM

I guess someone doesn’t like Thomas Edison or light bulbs.

MB4 on June 3, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Dumb Sotomayor statement: “Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they’re looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] — I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, and, I’m … you know.” [laughter]

Neither a woman nor a man reaches a better decision merely because of the richness of their experience of a particular gender, and the same is true of race and ethnicity. The decision making process is far more complicated than that

From USCOURTS.GOV:
Code of Conduct for US Judges
Canon #2 : A Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.

A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

B. A judge should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should not lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others; nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

C. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, ***, religion, or national origin.

It is abundantly clear that she has violated this canon of conduct, and should resign immediatly

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on June 3, 2009 at 5:18 PM

MB4 on June 3, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Kind of makes my response look pretty silly.

Nothing but punchline :)

progressoverpeace on June 3, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Not surprising. All lefties/libs do is repeat the same lines and ideas over and over and over. Too much time in the echo chamber?

Itchee Dryback on June 3, 2009 at 5:21 PM

GOP: Don’t filibuster, but vote against. Why endorse such a nominee with your vote? Making this a rubber stamp is as silly as not giving the candidate a vote to begin with. Read the dang constitution (hint: it’s probably hanging behind wherever Obama’s giving a speech).

cackcon on June 3, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Atilla the Fun nails it. Sorry to link this for the third time (apparently), but it’s just so perfect.

This has a sort of Clarence-Thomas-like aspect, in that we see this woman elevated to a Princess-Philosopher sort of loftiness, with her Phi Beta Kappa Princeton magnificence, and here Allah has her making the same idiotic suggestion twice, 7 years apart, only enhancing the nuance of the bigotry the second time around with a second degree of identity politics.

It sort of makes her look like an idiot. Kind of like the Treasury Secretary cheating on his taxes and blaming it on TurboTax, or the Vice President telling everyone he wouldn’t be caught dead on a train or plane right now. Or like Obama saying just about anything.

Jaibones on June 3, 2009 at 5:30 PM

She’s just choosing the same wrong words, over and over. That’s all. It’s not like her statements are evidence of how she thinks or anything.

hawksruleva on June 3, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Nobody will care. Obama played the race card stupidly and blatantly during the campaign on two separate occasions. The two occasions were nearly identical, yet people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (even though for anyone with a shred of common sense there was no “doubt” to begin with) that he wasn’t playing the race card the second time.

Remember that? Yes, I’m talking about the “funny name” comments. Same thing will happen here.

OneGyT on June 3, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Oh, Lucy…you got some splain-in’ to do…

Wyznowski on June 3, 2009 at 5:40 PM

To quote Obama:

The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult…. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.

So I imagine using the same reasoning as Obama did to oppose Roberts, so should we encourage our representatives to oppose Sotomayor.

Then again, half of my senators include the mortician from Searchlight, Nevada, Dingey Harry Reid…. sigh.

jcrue on June 3, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Evidently, the idea that her biology makes her a superior judge has been with her for decades.

Tsk Tsk Allah! How dare you leave out her race! :p

Branch Rickey on June 3, 2009 at 5:53 PM

So, is the law more like a therapy session, or more like a word problem in algebra? To me, given the same set of facts in a case, every judge should ideally reach the same decision.

But Obama and Sotomayor seem to agree that the court’s job is to provide help and support for people.

hawksruleva on June 3, 2009 at 5:57 PM

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….

Huckabye-Romney on June 3, 2009 at 4:09 PM

If it andars like a pato and graznidos like a pato…

right2bright on June 3, 2009 at 5:59 PM

If Latinas / Latinos are so wise, then if there’s another SCOTUS vacancy during Obama’s term, he should appoint Miguel Estrada.

Wait, can’t do that, that was Jorge Estupido Arbusto’s idea.

Steve Z on June 3, 2009 at 5:59 PM

The thing is, this is what academia and the media really think and everybody knows it. Anti-white and anti-male philosophies are the foundation of liberal media and academic culture and have been for decades.

C’mon! It’s been taught in schools and repeated endlessly on TV and in movies and newspapers for many, many years. “A woman can do anything a man can do – only better!” “The white male is the evil oppressor of all humanity.” And we’re shocked that this woman would merely repeat the PC slogans that favor her and pander to her?

What a lot of people are shocked about now is not that anyone would say and think such things, but that – whoa – such a person is going to be making rulings while serving on the Supreme Court of the United States. Liberal anti-white, anti-male bigotry and contempt are about to be institutionalized in a way they never have been before. And a lot of libs are really happy about that.

Django on June 3, 2009 at 6:03 PM

Fox reported on some brou-ha-ha about her being the potential 5th Catholic on the current court, which would make it skewed. Other faiths are beginning the protests.

This might get ugly.

ProudinNC on June 3, 2009 at 6:51 PM

If we don’t block this nomination to SCOTUS, we are so hate[f**k]ed

bluelightbrigade on June 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM

I wonder why no one will address the charge? If someone called you a racist bigot, surely you would defend yourself. I assume defending the indefensible is not going to work.

Levin was reading from her equally indefensible thesis … Showing she is a nationalist as well. Of course joining la Raza would have told you that.

Anyone see a pattern with this eminently unqualified insult to American jurisprudence?

tarpon on June 3, 2009 at 7:03 PM

ProudIn…don’t count on it

CWforFreedom on June 3, 2009 at 7:05 PM

The Dems have been experts at this sort of politics. Remember when Loretta Sanchez started using her maiden name in order to gain votes in her win over Bob Dornan?

CWforFreedom on June 3, 2009 at 7:07 PM

Allegedly Sotomayor already gave her rankings of races she considers inferior. Some confusion remains because she said “honky” while mentioning her morning rush-hour commute and “crackers” while eating a salad.

viking01 on June 3, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Perhaps Rush is just being cynically manipulative in declaring his potential support if Sotomayor is anti-abortion. He (and we) know that if it comes to be suspected that she’s even slightly less than 100% pro-choice a lot of liberals are going to suddenly freak, despite her solid liberal credentials of being a brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking, liberal female. Hmmm, her position on gay marriage wouldn’t be less than giddy, would it?

kd6rxl on June 3, 2009 at 7:19 PM

BLOCkBUSTER

She is a Puerto Rican separatist.

corona on June 3, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Well, J. Lo is a Bronx-born latina. She may only have a 74 IQ, but she is about 100 times wealthier than Sotomayor, doesn’t have to suck up to the racists in La Raza, and her mother doesn’t live in some crapshack Co-Op.
J. Lo for Supreme Court justice!

TexasJew on June 3, 2009 at 7:22 PM

There are already 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court. She would be the 6th if she is confirmed.

TruthToBeTold on June 3, 2009 at 7:28 PM

So it walks like a duck…

faol on June 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM

There are already 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court. She would be the 6th if she is confirmed.

TruthToBeTold on June 3, 2009 at 7:28 PM

Real believers? Yeh right

CWforFreedom on June 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM

But but but she misspoke in 1994 too. And the La Raza thing, well she just misread it and misinterpreted it too.

Geochelone on June 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM

There are no wickens on the supreme court. What a disgrace.
Wicken are wiser than Catholics.

Geochelone on June 3, 2009 at 7:37 PM

There are already 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court. She would be the 6th if she is confirmed.

TruthToBeTold on June 3, 2009 at 7:28 PM

So she’s a CINO.

faol on June 3, 2009 at 7:39 PM

Bigotry and feminism. I wonder, is she married?

Woody

woodcdi on June 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Oppose the hell out of her – the GOP has nothing at all to fear here. They should oppose everything that Obama does unless it’s something that is in alignment with Conservatism.

When Obama falls – everyone who sided with him will be history. It will be the guys they call “naysayers” today that will inherit the hulking shell of a superpower that will be left.

I know that a lot of people out there are saying … “Yeah but, Honda, what if Obama doesn’t overreach?”

I say – “What? Are you high?”

Look at the debt and look at the foreign policy. This time next year this nation will be a basket case and there won’t be a doubt who put us there. This is not rocket science folks – when you cut power to the engine in mid-air – the plane goes down. No State Controlled Press can hide the “crash”.

HondaV65 on June 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM

I like this woman. She’ll get through no matter how many hissy fits the GOP throws. If they protest too much, they lose more votes in 2012! A win/win. What a beautiful country we live in!

dcwvu on June 3, 2009 at 7:44 PM

As lights dim she see’s rosebud…..

faol on June 3, 2009 at 7:46 PM

If she does represent a 6th Catholic on the Supreme Court, I say pull her nomination and pick a white conservative male in her place. Simple!

Sweet_Thang on June 3, 2009 at 7:47 PM

If she does represent a 6th Catholic on the Supreme Court, I say pull her nomination and pick a white conservative male in her place. Simple!

Sweet_Thang on June 3, 2009 at 7:47 PM

Sacrilege! Off to the camp with you.

faol on June 3, 2009 at 7:50 PM

If they protest too much, they lose more votes in 2012! A win/win.

dcwvu on June 3, 2009 at 7:44 PM

Yes, after all, the Thousand Year Democrat Reich has only just begun.

Django on June 3, 2009 at 7:51 PM

As lights dim she see’s rosebud…..

faol on June 3, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Ha. Actually thats funny. I just watched that movie yesterday.

dcwvu on June 3, 2009 at 7:54 PM

Ha. Actually thats funny. I just watched that movie yesterday.

dcwvu on June 3, 2009 at 7:54 PM

Premonition.

faol on June 3, 2009 at 7:56 PM

It appears she ISN’T married. I don’t like that one bit.

Woody

woodcdi on June 3, 2009 at 8:02 PM

If she does represent a 6th Catholic on the Supreme Court, I say pull her nomination and pick a white conservative male in her place. Simple!

Sweet_Thang on June 3, 2009 at 7:47 PM

Sacrilege! Off to the camp with you.

faol on June 3, 2009 at 7:50 PM

No wait, I’m a white, conservative male!!!

Sweet_Thang on June 3, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Wouldn’t it be a hoot if she is made part of the SCOTUS and she turned out to be the left’s Souter?

mustng66 on June 3, 2009 at 8:26 PM

It appears she ISN’T married. I don’t like that one bit.

Woody

woodcdi on June 3, 2009 at 8:02 PM

Looking at her pic doesn’t exactly give me a Woody, if you know what I mean. What upstanding male would want to marry the beast? Oh, it doesn’t necessarily have to be from the opposite sex? …even that side won’t touch it!

Sweet_Thang on June 3, 2009 at 8:38 PM

She belongs to this organization, Maternity Center Association and is Catholic so there is a possibility that she is Pro-Life. I think Rush is running it up the flag pole to see if the Left will go after her.

Cindy Munford on June 3, 2009 at 8:54 PM

Can’t decide if she looks like Bella Abzugs little sister or Bella Lugosi.

faol on June 3, 2009 at 8:58 PM

Bigotry and feminism. I wonder, is she married?

Woody

woodcdi on June 3, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Sotomanure to the highest court, parley-voo?
Sotomanure to the highest court, parley-voo?
She never could win the love of a good man
‘Cause she gargles with hate and takes her baths in a talcum can
She has a foul temper and spews such a crock
And her face would surly stop a cuckoo clock
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on June 3, 2009 at 9:10 PM

But but but she misspoke in 1994 too. And the La Raza thing, well she just misread it and misinterpreted it too.

Geochelone on June 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Sotomanure to the highest court, parley-voo?
Sotomanure to the highest court, parley-voo?
She spews such a lying crock
As on her la Raza has a full head lock
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on June 3, 2009 at 9:13 PM

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on June 3, 2009 at 9:10 PM

I give it an 80 cause it’s easy to dance to

faol on June 3, 2009 at 9:13 PM

At least she’s consistent in her apparent disdain for the judgment and experience of old white men. Who wrote the US Constitution again? Frida Kahlo, Maya Angelou and Ingrid Newkirk?

Stickeehands on June 3, 2009 at 9:14 PM

Ha. Actually thats funny. I just watched that movie yesterday.

dcwvu on June 3, 2009 at 7:54 PM

Dude. I just watched it for the first time in two parts on Monday and today. Creepy.

OneGyT on June 3, 2009 at 9:15 PM

Was Rush serious today when he said he’d support her if he had reason to believe she was pro-life? What possible reason aside from her faith (one that’s shared by countless of pro-choice Democrats) would we have to think that? Surely someone as invested in gender politics as our “wise woman” nominee isn’t going to disappoint NARAL.

I am sure that has been said and I’m too lazy to read through all the comments right now, he’s simply trying to undermine the Left’s support for her. Isn’t it blatantly obvious?

TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 9:17 PM

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a fisherman in a boat below. She shouted to him, ‘Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don
‘t know where I am.

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, ‘You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above the water elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
She rolled her eyes and said, ‘You must be a Republican.’ ‘I am,’ replied the man. ‘How did you know?’ ‘Well,’ answered the balloonist, ‘everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost.
Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.’

The man smiled and responded, ‘You must be a Democrat.’ ‘I am,’ replied the balloonist. ‘How did you know?’ ‘Well,’ said the man, ‘you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it’s my fault.’

TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 9:32 PM

Was Rush serious today when he said he’d support her if he had reason to believe she was pro-life? What possible reason aside from her faith (one that’s shared by countless of pro-choice Democrats) would we have to think that? Surely someone as invested in gender politics as our “wise woman” nominee isn’t going to disappoint NARAL.

Once appointed why would she need to care about NARAL? If she is pro-life then I think Rush would say what he said today: “she’s a pro-life racist.” Conseratives are no different than liberals in that pieties or interests sometimes collide.

I’ll say this, Latin Catholics, in the main, do hold that life is sacrosanct. She can begin by ruling with the majority against late term abortion; the camel’s nose will be under the tent in terms of establishing a point of personhood in the womb. Science advances; NARAL screams. Nobody but them and their acoloytes will care.

I’m not for her appointment, but like Rush, if she’s appointed and she’s pro-life, that’s more than a little consolation.

Eirenic Rebel on June 3, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Is there anything better than watching Greg Sargent fail?

Jim Treacher on June 3, 2009 at 10:10 PM

A couple good thoughts on radio today.

(Rush Caller) A wise person does not boast of being wise.

(Hewitt Caller) Take the Wise Latina analogy to baseball umpires. The wise Latina ump would not only determine strikes better than white males could, but would be better at determining whether or not to value or consider home runs and scores based upon the player’s make-up. Tradition and rules of the game be damned; she’d revise the entire game with new rulings each game.

maverick muse on June 3, 2009 at 10:12 PM

TheBigOldDog on June 3, 2009 at 9:32 PM

LOL

maverick muse on June 3, 2009 at 10:14 PM

I think personally that this is a generational question. All minority players in my generation joined groups that promoted their own ethnic group. It was/is a form of a support group.

I simply can’t see anything wrong with this.

AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Wise = Magic

alice on June 3, 2009 at 10:45 PM

This women is worst of the worst.I think Rush is just playing with the minds of the Libs.You know casting a little doubt about Sotomayor pro life stance.I can just hear the Libs saying in the back rooms does Rush know something that we don,t?

thmcbb on June 3, 2009 at 10:46 PM

This women is worst of the worst.I think Rush is just playing with the minds of the Libs.You know casting a little doubt about Sotomayor pro life stance.I can just hear the Libs saying in the back rooms does Rush know something that we don,t?

Why? I don’t get it.

AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM

(AnninCA) I maybe wrong but i believe Rush is saying this women maybe pro life and i could support her is his way of tweaking the libs into having a little doubt about her.

thmcbb on June 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM

All minority players in my generation joined groups that promoted their own ethnic group.

AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 10:39 PM

Absolutely everyone? All of them? In your entire generation, whatever that means? What is the age cut off of “your” generation exactly?

It seems impossible for every minority to have joined a support group. In fact I know minority people that did not join. If they happen to be in your generation then your statement is FALSE.

Me thinks you are makin’ stuff up again like you did about the abortion statistics.

Any chance you were a humanities major? That would explain a lot.

Geochelone on June 3, 2009 at 11:23 PM

1. Poor judicial decisions, 60% reversal rate.
2. Narcissistic, self-absorbed, delusions about he own “wisdom.”
3. Hard-core leftist, who supported the extremist PR independence movement.
4. Unremarkable personal history, which doesn’t give her any more special insights than anyone else.
5. Judicial activist, who doesn’t care about the founding fathers’ view of the Judicial Branch.

Conclusion–Unqualified, period.

BottomLine5 on June 3, 2009 at 11:35 PM

I don’t get it.

AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM

Thank you for summing up your entire existence to date.

Jim Treacher on June 4, 2009 at 12:02 AM

(AnninCA) I maybe wrong but i believe Rush is saying this women maybe pro life and i could support her is his way of tweaking the libs into having a little doubt about her

Got it. Of course, Rush is going to oppose her. That’s his schtick. He doesn’t have to earn votes.

And of course, she’s liberal. Obama is liberal. He found a pretty moderate gal, but he’s not going to wake up tomorrow and support the conservatives on his court appointees. *haha

That’s silly thinking.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 12:08 AM

Thank you for summing up your entire existence to date.

I think most moderates don’t get either side. Tis’ our fate.

You all seem rather nutty to us.

AnninCA on June 4, 2009 at 12:10 AM

She is a Puerto Rican separatist.

corona on June 3, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Taylor’s analysis confirms what the left keeps trying to deny – she’s a garden-variety-minority-victimhood freak.

Puerto Rico separatist? Check.
Feminazi? Check.
Racial grievance delusions? Check.
Afraid to speak to reporters? Check.
Already denying her previous positions? Check.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Jaibones on June 4, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Jaibones on June 4, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Good Post.

Geochelone on June 4, 2009 at 12:55 AM

I don’t get it.

AnninCA on June 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM

Thank you for summing up your entire existence to date.

Jim Treacher on June 4, 2009 at 12:02 AM

I knew someone would jump on this. It was too juicy. Nice work Jim.

Geochelone on June 4, 2009 at 12:59 AM