Blogs > classyginger > Ginger Says... > No worries righty

No worries righty  


7/2/2009 11:38 am
 Lest any new readers to my blog believe that it is primarily a blog about religion I’ll turn my attention back to what’s happening now...

On Monday Rush Limbaugh said that the Supreme Court decision with respect to the Connecticut fire fighters case proved that Judge Sotomayor is a racist. That even though the decision was a 5\4 decision it was really a nine zip decision. Poor Rush, must have been playing with his magic snake during math class. The funny thing about it is how could he have the nerve to ever call someone a racist when he is clearly the one that is a racist.

He once said: “I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” Tell that to the generations of African Americans that labored and toiled for their masters only to receive the whip as payment. He’s also said: “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” Yeah Rush you said it alright! Still, this post is not about Rush.

I was reading some of your past comments on some of my older post that I never addressed. Ran across one from my friend Daytime. It was about Judge Sotomayor. So I want to touch on that for a moment. Yes Day I agree with you that her unfortunate comments (made on more than one occasion) were in fact racially insensitive. Still I don’t believe that she is a racist. I’ll expound:

The choice of Judge Sotomayor was not a case of the President picking a bonafide liberal. To the contrary! It was a safe pick for him. It is significant in the sense that he picked the first Latina to sit on the Supreme Court in a time when Latinos are the fastest growing voter block in this country. It’s also once again going to bring the number of woman that sit on the court back to two. The right shouldn’t be in such a panic about her because at the worst she won’t change the political balance on the court because she’ll be replacing Justice Souter. At best (for the right) is that she might vote in their favor in a number of cases. Their sniveling about the Connecticut Fire Fighters case was actually pretty silly in that she voted along with the lower court in order to send the case up to be heard by the Supreme Court. A frequent practice in the federal courts I might add.

She was a career prosecutor and spent some of her career as a cooperate lawyer. She’s suppose to be “empathetic” but I don’t know how empathetic she’s going to be towards the constitutional rights of criminal defendants. Some might say “the hell with those criminals!” But we still live in a country where one is innocent until proven guilty. In two prominent criminal cases she upheld searches based on invalid warrants and if you look at her record on the court of appeals she has agreed with Republicans 95% of the time. She upheld the Bush global gag rule. She dissented in the TWA case. It was a two to one decision and she voted against giving victim’s families’ money in the TWA crash. Seems kind of right wing thinking to me - you know, the interests of cooperation’s before that of the people. She’s also voted against plaintives in personal injury cases in favor of cooperation’s.

She voted against correctional officers who were retaliated against for complaints that they made against management. The woman is a mixed bag! She is not an unabashed liberal. From what I’ve read the right wing attack machine went full throttle against her without really digging through her record. A couple of weeks ago Rush Lardass changed his tune about her one day and told of her virtues. No shit! He emphasized the fact that she is a Catholic and might possibly be sympathetic to the far rights position with respect to a woman right to choose. I suspect that through their whisper campaign they now know much of what I’ve just mentioned. I suspect that on the day of the vote she’ll be confirmed before the senate gets home for dinner! I couldn’t dream of a reason why they wouldn’t confirm her. She’s smart enough and definitely experienced. Yep! Another case of the right jumping to conclusions. So what is it with these folk, folks? Did they stomp their feet like toddlers again because she was an Obama choice? Or might it be due to some underlined racism here? I wonder...
Come check out Ginger's Blog. A little brain food!!
Fire BreathingLIBERAL!!
beachbum7797
292 posts 

7/2/2009 3:47 pm

 I could not figure out from what you wrote whether or not you support Judge Sotomayor. You give lots of reasons why the radical right should support her, which normally I would think those would be reasons you would not support her. I would think that agreeing with Republicans 95% of the time would be enough for her to be rejected by a Democratic majority of senators. And addressing the Catholic preference in religion, although I am not Catholic, it is my understanding they are pro life, not pro choice. I thought, although I have not kept up recently, that Catholics do not support birth control, except for the rhythm method, and pulling out before the male orgasm. Pro choice, pro abortion, I do have some Catholic friends, I'll ask them what the official position is tomorrow. I would think a lot of Democrats would be wondering why George H.W. Bush nominated her to the federal bench back in '91. But maybe Clinton's nominating her in '97 for a promotion makes all the difference now.

Now we come to Ricci v. DeStefano. Yes Judge Sotomayor was part of the vote to affirm a lower court ruling. If the Supreme Court had decided not to hear the case, her opinion would have prevaled. If they decided to hear the case, and affirmed her point of view, her opinion would have also prevailed. To characterize the case as a case of whining seems to me to just throw fuel on an already burning issue. You can call it a case of dixcrimination, or reverse discrimination, whatever makes you feel better. I live in south Texas, and felt the effects of affirmative action quite a while back. I had applied for a summer job as a lifegaurd at the city swimming pool. I was certified to teach lifegaurds. I was certified to teach first aid. In south Texas, Hispanic ethnicity is in the majority. Being Hispanic or of Mexican heritage is not a racial thing, it is an ethnicity. I do not know the ratio of males to females. But I was denied the job because I was a white male. This was told to me directly in my interview. "I wish we had someone with your skill with a darker skin color, and female." Of course, I could not be considered for a supervisory position, training others, more politically acceptable for the job. Nope, the city had quotas to meet. And hiring another white guy in a higher position would skew the numbers. Very important consideration when hiring the most qualified to watch kids at the city pool, or promoting firefighters. I did not whine about it then. I got a job at the country club, teaching swimming, training life gaurds, and guarding the pool after swimming lessons were over. And by the way, I had spent the previous summer operating another city pool, so I did have very nice references for the life guard job at the city pool.

I didn't file a suit, although I think if I had, those firefighters in New Haven would not have had to. It's hard for me to imagine strong willed people on either side of the political fence supporting Sotomayor. But centrists seem to like her. Those that have actually read more than the few words she wrote when summarily dismissing Ricci v. DeStefano. I don't think she's evil or racist, but I have not seen much eloquence either.....Beach
Labore pro Pacem


classyginger replies on 7/2/2009 4:21 pm:
Friend, I don't call republicans "pro-life" because they aren't. They support the death penalty (something that most Catholics don't). They're not "pro-life" they're anti-choice! Honestly I don't know what to think about Sotomayor. On the one hand I think highly of the Presidents intelligence so I hope he knows what he's doing. On the other hand if I were in his shoes I wouldn't have chosen her. As far as abortion goes - I'm for a woman's right to choose. But personally if I became pregnant I would have that child. Even if the dad didn't want it and I had to tell him to get to stepin'!

On affirmative action it might very well be obsolete but had it never been enacted the discrimination that it sought to curtail would have never stopped. So in that sense it was a good thing. But let's be real here friend, the biggest beneficiary of affirmative action was me - the white woman! Not blacks, Hispanic or Asians. As far as I'm concerned, the fairness and the good that came out of it far outweighed the negatives. I'll tell you another thing; I don't buy for one minute this racist attitude (I'm not calling you a racist) that one's race has something to do with ones intellect. It doesn't! There are brilliant people of all races; I know this to be a fact. I say that it's a matter of nurture not nature!
honestjohn4u
3174 posts 

7/3/2009 11:12 am

 Here is the packed response for the party of NO. What is your alternative proposal so that I might give it fair consideration. The silence is deafening.
I Swami Johnny see's all, knows all, tells very little.


classyginger replies on 7/12/2009 7:25 pm:
Spot on!
RevJoseyWales
14393 posts 

7/3/2009 11:54 am

 No need to wonder about the rascism on the part of Republicans Darlin'. We already know. August 16th is the day. *sigh* Rev Joe
"McVeigh had the right idea, wrong address."

"This ain't Dodge City, and you ain't Bill Hickok."


classyginger replies on 7/12/2009 7:26 pm:
It's still surprising some times.

Become a member to comment on this blog