SCOTUS pick: Sonia Sotomayor
So, it’s Sonia Sotomayor. Identity politics triumphs. Here’s the bio/record info I shared at the beginning of the month:
“Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges.
-Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”
-Only just recently, in Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of unfair treatment raised by firefighters. Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.
-Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.”
And here’s the rundown on Obama’s SCOTUS choice from Wendy Long at the Judicial Confirmation Network:
Memorandum
TO: JCN Members and Interested Parties
FROM: Wendy Long, Counsel to JCN
DATE: May 26, 2009
RE: Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor• President Obama has threatened to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences instead of neutrally applying the law. In selecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his
Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his threat.• Judge Sotomayor will allow her feelings and personal politics to stand in the way of basic fairness. In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. The per curiam opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way to bury the firefighters’ important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her.
o According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been
deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”o Sotomayor’s terrible decision in Ricci is under review by the Supreme Court and an opinion is expected by the end of June.
• Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider
their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her
experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”• The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court.
• Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the Supreme Court by Nan Aron of the very liberal Alliance for Justice, who stated in a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had “been through an initial vetting and fit into the criteria that we believe should be the
standard for any Supreme Court justice.”• The White House is sure to argue that Sotomayor is a “bipartisan pick” because Bush 41 appointed her to the district court: President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991 only because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district court nominees in New York. In 1998, 29 Republican senators voted against President Clinton’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.
Legal analyst Stuart Taylor sums up this p.c. pick:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001
The above assertion and the rest of a remarkable speech to a Hispanic group by Sotomayor — widely touted as a possible Obama nominee to the Supreme Court — has drawn very little attention in the mainstream media since it was quoted deep inside The New York Times on May 15.
It deserves more scrutiny, because apart from Sotomayor’s Supreme Court prospects, her thinking is representative of the Democratic Party’s powerful identity-politics wing.
Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere “aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” And she suggested that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may help explain why “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
So accustomed have we become to identity politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.
***
Update: Obama praised Sotomayor in his announcement for having “saved baseball” and read Nancy Drew as a young child. The White House is pushing the “compelling personal story” angle hard.
There are murmurs of filibuster threats by the GOP.
Alas, those are idle threats, as all the GOP’s past filibuster threats have been over the past year.
Mark my words.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Nancy Pelosi: The Obamacare SCOTUS Arguments Should Be Transparent (Now That the Bill Has Been Written, Passed and Implemented)
November 16, 2011 08:51 PM by Doug Powers
47 CommentsDocument drop: C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to open Obamacare oral arguments to cameras
November 15, 2011 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 CommentsObamacare Arrives at the Supreme Court; Update: Court Announces They’ll Hear Case This Term
November 13, 2011 03:42 PM by Doug Powers
158 Comments
Indiana Supreme Court: Resisting an Unlawful Entry Into Your Home is… Unlawful
May 14, 2011 01:03 PM by Doug Powers
148 CommentsWhite House Tells Supreme Court to Stay Away from Obamacare
March 15, 2011 09:38 AM by Doug Powers
130 Comments
Why Liberals and the Supreme Court are a Dangerous Mix, Part XXXVII
September 14, 2010 12:52 PM by Doug Powers
51 CommentsWho Inspired Lindsey Graham to Vote for Elena Kagan’s Confirmation? Why, Jesus, of Course!
August 6, 2010 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
Categories: Supreme Court
Riehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your wayPatterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksGateway Pundit
» Barack The BenevolentRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the Nonconformists
1. I wonder how McCain will vote… (considering that he voted to confirm Breyer and Ginsburg, not to mention his liking of O’Connor.)
2. I’m proud to say that I voted on principle, which is to say, for neither Obama nor McCain.
3. Expect about as much effort out of the Republicans right now as the State Dep. with North Korea. Both situations require balls, and neither group has any.
Julian Epstein says she is the best, most capable person in the nation for this position…Well, that settles it then, doesn’t it?
A Clintonyte gushing brilliance over this nomination (“She’s a ‘centrist’.”)…he felt Kimba Wood, Zoe Baird, and Janet Reno, were also “the best choices” for Attorney General at (that) time. How did that work out?
I wonder if she has tax, I.I. gardener, or housekeeper issues, as is endemic with her party? Can’t go there, though…it’s racist to question a nominee’s ability to abide by the laws on which they adjudicate.
There will be nary a Republican who will , even as a token protest, challenge this nomination…the little cowards don’t have the stones to even hint at going after the constitutionality of the vast majority of Obama’s actions/decrees/decisions so far. Why should this be any different?
Yep, he’s painting an image that’s like a Norman Rockwell painting – the same way Barack emphasizes his Kansan heritage. Any day now we’ll hear all about how apple pie is her favorite dessert.
Rogue Cheddar:
Big Whoop. Your puerile response is perfectly congruent with your unthinking voting pattern.
Again, thanks for voting for Obama, you fool.
If there is any really negative stuff about this gal the blogs will find it. They are probably already all over it, I hope. You know the msm won’t. Judge Napalatino (sp) on Fox this morning knows her and he said she is left of left. Just what bho said he would name.
L
Look, she’s an avowed racist.
She’s an avowed sexist.
She is one of the most clearly radical people in the Federal judiciary, and has been reversed FREQUENTLY…even reprimanded by a higher court. THAT IS VERY UNUSUAL.
Did they do the polling during American Idol? Did you have to text in a number for your response? I trust that you are assuming that with Obama’s election, everything he does has America’s stamp of approval.
Granted that Obama won convincingly in the last election. But it is a far stretch of logic to assume that the majority of Americans will agree with ALL of his decisions/actions. Many of his supporters are in a tizzy over the continuation of Bush’s war on terrorism policies. The last polling data I saw indicates that America does not want to continue to bail out banks and auto manufacturers.
Please feel to rephrase your comment at any time (unless, of course, you are a news producer/announcer at MS/NBC).
Does your shift manager know you’re back on the Internet again – don’t you have burgers to flip or a fry basket to empty?
I mean, given your even handed opinion of us conservatives, how ur we’ins gonna keeps drawin’ ur checks if you’ins keeps losin’ yur jobs?
Now skedaddle on back to work and remeber, I’es likes my welfare check big and on time!
I keep a copy of the constitution in my safe deposit box with my property deeds, insurance policies, and other important documents that are the bedrock of my security.
If the Supreme Court runs amuck — radically amuck and completely shreds the guarantees of liberty and freedom in the constitution — there is no recourse in law. The Supreme Court is the final word on law in this country.
There would be no possibility of opposition in the courts, but opposition there would have to be. If an illegal leftist dictatorship evolves in this country with the help of a rogue, leftist court, then that illegal government would have to be taken down by whatever means necessary.
Ragspierre said (#100):
Great comment, but …
It’s OK to apply common sense to economic analysis. It should be OK to use “common sense” and take into account the effect of a ruling on minorities and women. Not all unintended consequences are economic.
BTW, lgm (surprise!) grossly distorted several things in # 89.
Posner could only be described as a “conservative” by a Maxist.
Posner NEVER personalizes his suggestion that a cost/benefit analysis is appropriate in fashioning a ruling in a case. He doesn’t suggest that a judge consider the impact on A lumberjack, but on the industry. That is NEUTRAL as to race, gender, sexual-orientation, etc., as INDUSTRIES are made up of all kinds of people, and the composition of the player in the industry is TOTALLY EXTRANEOUS to the cost/benefit ratio.
That is the inverse of what THE ONE, and his pick for SCOTUS favor. They advocate taking the blindfold off of the Goddess Of Justice, and having her look closely at the race, the gender, and a bunch of other PERSONAL factors. That replaces our notion of “A Nation Of Laws, and Not Of Men” with a notion of “A Nation Of Identities, and Not Of Law”.
Another government quota system (er, I mean affirmative action) hire. She may be qualified, but we all know she got “extra credit” because of her ethnicity. I bet la raza and lulac are jumping for joy.
I reject your premise and your thanks!
My unthinking voting pattern? How dare you?! How very dare you?! I vote my conscience and for a candidate that most closely fits my values with regards to the country and it’s constitution. Obama and McCain weren’t qualified! I refuse to be a sheep led by one party or the other. If you insist on blaming me for Obama, well, your not only a fool, you can also kiss my lily white wrinkly tax paying you know what!
Rogue Cheddar:
Yeah, your ego is what led us to this. You and your high and mighty “conscience”, which is nothing but a massage for your ego, is what it comes down to.
Sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils and forego the adolescent idea of purity in politics.
You’re a fool, and your foolishness helped put that demagogue in the White House. You can cover your ears and scream, “lalalala, I’m not listening”, but that’s the fact. YOU AND YOUR ILK PUT THIS JERK IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
Me, too. I fought for that dream back in the day.
I am fighting for it now. Racism is alive and well, and it now sits in the White House.
Ragspierre you only fought against MLK, you fought againt Mandela, now you’re fighting against Obama.
I’ll bet your mama is proud, you are fighting against the same looking people she spent her life fighting against.
On issues of race the beliefs of King and Obama are opposite. Completely incompatable. For you to suggest that one is somehow the legacy of the other only underscores, again, how foolish and unserious a person you are.
Ilovecuba;
You are wrong. Today, yesterday, and predictably tomorrow.
You have no idea who I am, or what I have fought to do, what I fight for today, and will fight for tomorrow.
You have shown by your statement that you are the hater here. You can’t square what you are for with the dream of a nation in which a race, gender, and every other group identifier you want imposed is meaningless.
You are for everything that King said he was against.
A bigot is what you are, and that is a despicable thing to be.
Yup, you got that right.
Ragspierre: I am sure ILMC got his views of you from the fact that you don’t praise obama like a god after each post.
How is this any different than her original quote?
Give it a rest. The only fool here is you. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
That’s atheling for you. He thinks that if we only keep voting for the “lesser of two evils” we’ll be ok. But evil is evil, and soft despotism leads to tyranny just the same.
We’ve been settling for the “lesser of two evils” for a long time now. Where has it gotten us?
Excellent.
Sounds like a real peach. She already has Black Robe Disease.
You guys are hysterical – the most racist, least educated, most closed minded people in this country and you claim to know about MLK – what a joke.
Then, you claim to be an MLK supporter, but also claim that Obama is the opposite.
Who would MLK support Sarah Palin or Barack Obama?
I can’t wait to see the crazy replies to that question.
Nobody can know the answer to that.
But, unless MLK was a racist, he would not make his decision on the race of any candidate.
Many, many voters in the last election did. As they have been conditioned to do.
Like you, they looked first at extraneous and bigoted indicators. They stopped looking there.
That is a shame.
You must say this every morning when you look into the mirror. You should change your name to Ilovemyprojection, it’s a much better fit than your current one.
Don’t you folks unnerstand?
Racism be okay as long as it be the right kind of racism!!!
When you guys gonna get wit’ da system?
Hey, where my weffare check be at???
Hey, clown…this ain’t no MLK martyrhood society. We get all that we need by tuning in NPR ~any~ time. MLK was good for the country in that he advocated non-violence at a time when things could have gone the other way.
OTH, MLK turned out near the end of his life to be — ideologically speaking — a fervent communist committed to bootstrapping off the momentum of the Civil Rights movement to push the country seriously leftward. (Remind you of anybody?) And, as we all know, he was no saint in his personal life.
This country had a lot of heroes before MLK came along. Frankly, I am so sick of the MLK cult that I no longer give a rat’s butt about the brother. Your posts are really boring me.
ILMC is a race baiter. Nothing more, nothing less.
Don’t all you hysterical, close-minded, uneducated racists get it?
Her skin color is important because it’s a sign to all people of her skin color (but not anyone else) that hard work pays off. It’s important that someone of her skin color be on the supreme court, because all people of her skin color think the same way and it’s important to have those ethnic opinions represented. Also, if someone of her skin color is on the supreme court, this will raise the inherent value of everyone else of the same skin color in her reflected glory rather than that overrated individual merit nonsense.
It’s amazing all the op-eds that say exactly the above this morning (and a few clueless commentors here). The LA times snow-job is particularly gag-me-with-a-spooon worthy. MLK is has been spinning in his grave for decades, but by now if we could hook him up to a dynamo, we’d solve the world’s energy troubles.
MLK would choose Palin or Obama?
Lessee: The woman Obama appointed has a ridiculous track record of being overturned and rebuked even by fellow liberal activist judges for having a complete lack of even pretence for jurisprudence. He either appointed her because of her “qualifications” or because of her skin color. So the “content of his character” is either an idiot, or a racist. Pretty safe bet Reverend MLK would prefer the bible thumper who practices what she preaches. Even an atheist can see that.
No matter if Sotomayor is confirmed or not. One like her in philosophy WILL be named to the Supreme Court. The Republicans have neither the will nor the way to stop all the possibilities. Since they will be replacing Souter, not much of a change. When one of the strict contitutionalists resigns or dies, THAT will be a “biggie”.
There is some opinion out there that she is such a repellent dope that she will actually push some of the fence-sitting justices to the right.
Who knows…
The facts are still the facts. She is a racist, and a sexist by her own declaration.
She is a very poor jurist on her record.
We can expect no better, but we should…
VERY VOCALLY OPPOSE HER.
Interesting, I saw this from Drudge, and followed the link. What hypocrites the Dems are…unbelievable. This is what they did the Estrada…
Why the Dems “Borked” Estrada:
OK, so they did this because they didn’t want Republicans to take credit for nominating the first Latino to the Supreme Court?????
Politics much?
To say nothing of racism much…
Excuse me for voting my beliefs, my conscience, my ego, my adolescent idea of purity in politics? Whatever. You want to blame me and my ilk for not voting your lesser of two evils into the Whitehouse, fine, have at it. You can still vote for evil all you want, but I blame you and your ilk for voting stupidity that continues to foster candidate choices that, how you say, suck! I think your inpotent rage is causing you to point fingers in the wrong direction.
Oh, and for those who want to read the entire “strategy” for screwing Bush nominees, here’s a recap word for word by Libtards in the Senate…
Now, imagine if Republicans had used that kind of language…dangerous…because he is Latino.
Uh huh. Who’s the racist now? Hmmm, this would make a great political ad with all those incriminating quotes, no?
This is an ad hominem attack, one that is misspelled and unsupported by facts to boot.
On issues of race, they are. One advocated judging people based on their actions and character, demanding equal treatment under the law. The other advocates the law favoring people based on the color of their skin. Newsflash for you: those are opposite positions.
I don’t know, and neither do you. It’s also not relevant whom he’d support.
You’re commiting an average of one logical fallacy per paragraph. That’s impressive, even for a liberal.
I voted for evil? Sarah Palin is evil? Listen you yourself. What idiocy! You are accusing me of “fostering” candidate choices that “suck”? How so?
Your delusional and moronic rantings support my assertion that you are too stupid and egotistical to vote. Hell, how about putting your country before yourself, for once? Instead of your pseudo moralizing about your “conscience” and adolescent rants about “evil”, HOW ABOUT THINKING ABOUT AMERICA INSTEAD OF YOURSELF, YOU SELFISH ADOLESCENT BOOB?
Whichever Democrat operatives duped Republican primary voters to select McCain last year must be lickin’ their collective chops overtime, woweeee!
‘Leaders’ that do not take our
US Constitution, oaths of Office, our laws, or limits on their power seriously-are inclined to nominate and support those whom have publicly declared that the ‘ends’ justify the ‘means’.
Exactly whom people that want our Constitutional Republic preserved would dread sitting on our nations highest court!
Statists”, however are jumping for joy today!
Tea party movement unity is going to change that!
Gorebot:
They registered themselves as Republicans so they can vote for a crappy candidate in the Primaries. That’s what the Dems do.
Guys…!!!
I don’t think the numbers for third-party voting support any idea that THE ONE would not be where he is if all conservatives voted for McAnus.
The results of the election were a given when McAnus was nominated and THE ONE anointed by the MSM.
We got what we got. We have to fashion ways to fight what we got. That will take all of us working together.
That sounds like a fast food item I would not order.
“To remind Americans how dangerous liberal facism is, dial 1-800-BIN-LADEN, now.”
“To remind Americans how dangerous liberal facism is so that they can remember it beyond five minutes, dial 1-800-MSNBC-24-7, now.”
“If you would like to hear this recording en Espanol, please dial 1-800-HOME-DEPOT, now.”
“Thank you; the next time you dial, your call will be very important to us, maybe.”
atheling,
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember the numbers for conservative third party votes still would not have put McCain over the top even if he had received all those votes too. If you have numbers to back up your position, please link to them.
That said, I chose to vote for McCain (in spite of having to use extreme effort to squelch my gag reflex) while praying that he would become physically unable to remain in office almost immediately. In other words, I actually voted for Palin. That was the only shot we had at getting a decent President.
And even if McCain did hold on, that would have given us an extra 4 years to prepare for the collapse the left is pushing us towards.
We need to think going forward — not backwards. I agree, McCain was the most pathetic pick for the Republican party knowing the slobbering love affair with Obama based on his looks, his hipness, and not because of his [lack of] experience.
Regardless WHO you had up against “the one” I still think we would’ve lost.
We need to think about 2010 elections right now, and getting rid of people like Pelosi and Reid. Think Tom Daschle if you still think this can’t be done.
We can recoup some lost ground in Congress and move towards a successful 2012 elections. Considering the way the nation’s headed and the economy tanking even further — the recession will not end at the end of this year – this is going to be a long one. And then people will finally realize that this so-called “change” wasn’t such a good idea after all. The honeymoon will end, and people will start asking questions.
Just ask the 1000 car dealerships that Obama is closing down. Some job creation there…and this is only the beginning of his socialist agenda.
This is not what America is, or what it deserves.
You mean he would have reversed the Bush bailouts? He wouldn’t be interested in the McCain-Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill? Or the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty bill?
Better leave it there. By the time Obama is through with this country, the Constitution will be DOA. Heck, in a few years, having a copy of the Constitution could be a violation of national law, as a terrorist activity.
EWTHeckman:
Even if what you say is true, numbers wise, it still does not mitigate the PRINCIPLE of voting strategically.
And what if we are faced with the same problem in 2012? Should those fools who vote for ideological purity vote for a 3rd party again and possibly hand Obama a 2nd term?
I’m not sure I can agree with that. The voters in this country, left and right, have become so stupid, and so self absorbed, that I’m beginning to believe that we deserve every shackle we bear.
In a representative government, you get the leader you deserve.
How about this; the GOP (or whoever is left standing) FACTORS into the nominating process the preferences of their base, including us purists who had to vote for people we deplore?
Wouldn’t THAT be much better…????
1. I was not ranting about evil, you did, as you said you picked the lesser of two evils, and blamed me for not joining you in your tortured logic.
2. Sarah Palin was not a candidate for President. Although, I did like her. John McCain was, however, too unpalatable for me. My choice, I can live with it.
3.I am not an adolescent, though my wife will say otherwise (notice how I refrain from screaming at you in all CAPS), and I do take my vote very serious, and when I do, I think of my country and constitution first and foremost. Sorry,McCain was not the answer. You hurt my feelings here. (sniff)
Here, try this.
Candidates for POTUS: Barack Obama or Adolph Hitler? (just for fun, I leave it up to you to decide who is the lesser of two evils)
Hmmm, what to do, what to do?
According to you, I and my ilk have no third choice, I beg to differ.
I have believed that all my life, and still do as a general proposition.
However, where you have an election in which the MSM becomes the PR firm for one candidate, I think that fundamentally skews the whole ideal of democracy.
Wow.
Should be interesting to hear her and Obama explain that one. Wonder how the white males currently on the U.S. Supreme Court feel about it.
Ragspierre:
It’s up the the electorate to punish or bypass the MSM for their corruption, instead of swallowing it wholesale, as they do.
I’m sorry, but in a political system such as ours, there is no excuse for the voter’s ignorance, laziness, or selfishness.
We have no one to blame but ourselves. Our Founding Fathers set up a wonderful, revolutionary system of government, in which The People consent to who will govern them. There’s no ifs, ands or buts about it.
If we wear chains, it’s because we voted for them.
Cheddar:
Your wife is smarter than you are.
I’d vote for Obama over Hitler. You go ahead and throw away your vote for Duesterberg.
That would be expecting way too much from McCain. Though if he became unable to continue as President, Palin may have actually tried to reverse these problems.
On the other hand, McCain wouldn’t be using an industrial strength plunger to push this country down the toilet any faster, just letting us drain at a more sedate pace. Hopefully that would have allowed enough time for the rest of us to prepare for the American Dark Ages.
I am put in mind of my favorite focus-group story.
A big petroleum refiner asked a marketing firm to put together a campaign for a new motor oil.
A petroleum engineer, watching the focus-group footage, and hearing the member’s responses showing their understanding of the qualities of motor oil, turned to the marketing guy in disgust and said, “We need smarter focus-groups”.
He just didn’t get it. Focus groups are supposed to be a representative sample of the consumer base to which you are targeting a product. They are what they are, if actually representative.
You and I may want a nation of exercised, informed, and aware voters. We got what we got, and that implies that we have to fashion ways to get our points across to them effectively.
It isn’t enough to say they deserve this administration. My kids don’t. Their kids don’t. Most of the dupes that voted for the moderate myth of Obama don’t. They were lied to.
I think UNIVISION is already thanking him continuously by announcing her nomination. I just wish they stop drooling an get to the issues.
Oh I forgot it’s univision they do have time to report the issues with all the half naked women dancing and TV novelas.
Ragspierre:
I completely disagree with your last two sentences.
The “myth” of Obama was dispelled by the blogosphere, conservative talk radio, and conservative pundits. Those dupes went ahead and voted for the myth anyway.
They fully deserve what they get.
Ragspierre,
I respectfully request permission to use McAnus to refer to the RINO King. That is bloody brilliant (and hysterical)!!!
Regards,
CCS
Is there a reason why none of my comments are going through?
Granted, with my thanks.
That’s about the most ignorant, prejudiced, uniformed post I’ve ever read on this blog. And that’s the NICEST thing I could say about it.
Congratulations. You have demonstrated clearly that you need to be ignored.
I deal with questions of fraud a good bit.
Do you think that people who are the victims of fraud get what they deserve?
Ragspierre:
Only when they have had access to the actual facts of the matter, and have been warned, as the Americann voter was.
And I bet that creature wasn’t even posting his own words. He goes to other sites and plagiarizes, folks here have found him out.
He can’t come up with an original thought of his own, because he has no brain.
But it is demonstrable that they did not have access to the “actual facts” through the media they use and trust.
Sometimes, we have to recognize that a lot of us are WAY outside the norm, and that we have an obligation to bring people up to speed.
We can easily say, “We need smarter focus groups”, and have the result we will always get with that attitude.
Put another way; I often see train-wrecks in the making. I could stand on my hill and silently cluck my tongue at the stupid error people are making. Or, I could shout and wave my arms, or do something EFFECTIVE to make people aware of the danger.
Which is better?
Ragspierre:
THen you contradict yourself.
The American voter are adults. They should be adult enough to investigate candidates themselves, and to view what the media portrays with some level of skepticism. They are not little children who need nannies to watch over them and guide them all the time, especially when it comes to voting.
The corruption of the msm is nothing new. Ever since the founding of our Republic, we have had problems with the press, and if an American adult is so bloody ignorant of his own nation’s history that he hadn’t the wherewithal to regard the media with some suspicion, then he is a fool and deserves to be duped.
My grandfather always used to say, “Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you read”. And he was referring to the media. And he was born in the early 20th century. So, if a mere nobody like him can figure out that the media should not be completely trusted, why is it that so many Americans today swallow their stories wholesale?
No, I’m sorry, your excuses do not fly. We are adults, and we should know better. There is no justification for our laziness and ignorance.
Ragspierre said (#111):
That might be true in your definition of “Marxist”, but:
Then you say:
True, but why not? Why is economics the only external factor allowed?
Economic impacts are important only because they lead to impacts on actual people. There are other ways to impact people. Anti gay laws impact gays, for example.
So let me get this straight. The same public was smart enough to overcome the mainstream media in 2000 and 2004 wasn’t smart enough to do so in 2008. Or perhaps the duping by the mainstreamers was just so much worse in 2008. I agree with Atheling. Access to info is out that for all and to assume that only “we” are smart enough to have found it and that the rest of the public is just a bunch of suckered lambs constitutes arrogance of the worst sort.
Ragspierre:
Also, they HAVE had access to the facts, through the venues I previously listed.
If they are too stupid and lazy to go outside the box they live in, that’s NO ONE’S fault but their own.
I’m becoming incredulous that you are taking this position. On the one hand, you say you agree with me that we are responsible for the leadership we vote for. But on the other, you are making lame excuses for the apathetic and ignorant American voter! Why are you taking this tack? It is so unlike you.
And are, uniformly, unconstitutional.
Duh.
Mr. Reagan did not solicit ideas from homogenized conservatives. Because Posner was listened to by Reagan was not a stamp of Posner’s conservative credentials, just the merit of his thinking.
I doubt VERY seriously that Posner calls himself a conservative.
You can call him one, but that simply reduces your credibility.
atheling: At the risk of becoming a target of your vitriol, you are certainly projecting a great deal today…
nail49:
Oh really? Do tell me where I’ve plagiarized comments.
Otherwise, go away, little gnat.
Ragspierre,
I’m sympathetic to your argument. However, even though the MSM was clearly in Obama’s corner, they do not have total control over the flow of information. There were ads from all sides, talk radio, the internet, direct mailings, voter guides and even the occasional story in the MSM for “balance” which should have alerted people that—at the very least—there were direct contradictions which needed to be figured out.
There is a distinct difference between naivete and gullible. There is an even larger difference between uninformed and willfully ignorant.
Those who were willfully ignorant and willingly led astray do deserve what they get. After all, if you’re not willing to look out for your own interests, someone else will eventually use to you for their own purposes.
When it comes to voting, we all feel the results of an election, whether we vote or not. Therefore, everyone in the country has a responsibility to be at least minimally aware of the actual positions held by the candidates running for major office. After all, it’s not like such information is hard to find.
bigterpfan: The fact that so many voted based on emotions and not facts is not arrogance on my part.
As put, you are correct. But you are wrong about your depiction.
I am not excusing, but recognizing a reality that has to be dealt with.
The purity of your point is a given.
My questions involve going beyond that to what we do with the information we both comprehend.
It is stupid to hole the life-boat. We agree. But we are still in the life-boat, and we have to deal with the urge to hole it. EFFECTIVELY.
I find the impulse to say, “OK, you put a hole in the boat. You deserve what you get.” unsatisfactory. I’m in the boat.
atheling: Your anger is quite amusing.
Are you off your meds?
I’d sugggest that the fact that you assume that the “other side” voted based on emotions and that those on “your side” voted based on a cool deliberative consideration of the facts is the very definition of arrogance.
There are a number of reasons why Obama won, not the least of which is the terrible campaign run by McCain and the terrible choice of candidates by Republicans. By assuming that only “we” know what is best/what is right suggests an arrogance that so often the liberals are accused of.
Ragspierre:
What you propose then, is control! You or I cannot control what another human being will read, or watch, regarding political information. We can put it out there, and tell them our opinion, but if they refuse to listen, or even look at the alternatives, then they are to blame if they screw up. And yes, we suffer from their idiocy as well.
Why do you think I am looking at secession as the only way now? It’s beyond repair, the level of stupidity and wilfull ignorance out there – look at the moronic trolls on this thread alone! You cannot fight invincible ignorance, and I don’t think your suggestions will work. They don’t want to know, and they will never know, and no matter what you do or say, they will not accept it.
It’s futile. The only way out is to separate ourselves from them, and form our own union. Let them go down in the boat themselves. I’ve had a belly full of their stupidity, and no longer wish to “work with them”. Game’s over. It’s time to move on and leave them to their devices.
For many reasons, however, I’ll stop my agreeing with Atheling at this point. Not that I assume anybody would care.
bigtwerpfan: How many people fainted at McCain/Palin rallies and how many have swooned over Obama — to include the LameStream Media. Tell me emotions weren’t involved.
bigterpfan: Sorry for the fat fingers on typing your name on my last posting…
I’m not arguing that emotions didn’t play a role in the selection of a President, only that it wasn’t the one-sided thing that you depict.
HOw many people voted for McCain because they couldn’t stand the thought of Obama being President. Does not that constitute a decision based on emotion as well?
‘Tis okay. I am kind of a twerp.
Point taken, but you have to admit emotions and not facts on the part of those who presented the two sides played a big part. Is “a tingle up one’s leg” an emotional thing or a factual thing?
I’ve faced similar charges…
Our electorate is dreadfully uninformed. Ask twenty people if they know the name Sotomayor, and one might say, “Sounds familiar. Where’s Soto—in Kansas?” America doesn’t want her because they’ve never heard of her. They won’t even remember her two days after she wins the seat. Unless the media finds something titillating or scandalous, Americans could give a rip about Supreme Court nominees.
Toto…I mean, Sotomayor’s probably a shoe-in. The Left demands that a liberal replaces a liberal, and the Repub’s will probably shrug their shoulders and mutter, “Unkay.” Hate to say it, but that’s what I’m guessing. America still thinks Denzel Washington or 24‘s President Palmer won the election (they seem like such nice fellows), so I don’t hold my breath that We The People will pay much attention to this nomination.
My half a cent’s-worth on the RC/atheling dispute: I vote for the lesser of two evils in general elections unless I think a third party has a shot. Our choices for the position in the Oval Office during the last twenty years have been so lame, I voted for Perot both times he ran. Granted, he took votes away from Republicans, but Republicans had Bush Sr. and Dole. While I don’t mind them now, neither were worth writing home about. I voted for change I quarter-heartedly believed in, but now that I’m older and seniler, on some level I sigh in relief that Perot didn’t win. If America is choosing one or the other but not another other, I have to pick the side that has a shot at beating the worst candidate.
No. I purpose a much more skillful, intelligent process of persuasion, including education.
Again, I agree that our fellow citizens SHOULD be the kind of people our Founders hoped we would be. Of course, they knew that people would TEND not to be all they hoped, because they were keen observers of human nature. That is one of the reasons they regarded a free press as indispensable.
We agree, I think, that the MSM was shamelessly in the tank for THE ONE. My point is that is was literally unprecedented in history, and I think I’m in very good company in that view.
But our entire presidential selection process was miserable. Top to bottom.
I am not really butting heads with you. We agree on virtually all fundamental points. I merely think that we have information, and now need to use it intelligently to correct the problems we both perceive.
The larger question of whether this union can remain, as now so totally polarized, is one that I have grave doubts about, as well.
That question answers itself.
My main point remains that Obama won for a whole bunch of reasons. I don’t think blaming the press, accusing the voters of stupidity and the like is a very productive thing. I think the Republicans need to focus on getting better candidates for themselves and running better campaigns.
Ragspierre:
I agree on the education part, but we don’t have the luxury of time to accomplish our objective, don’t you think?
The dumbing down of our electorate started 40 years ago, and now we are reaping the bitter fruits of that wrongful course. I do not think that 4 years will be sufficient to reverse the course. I really don’t.
Indeed. We have few alternatives, and the task of educating the American voter is Herculean, in terms of shoveling a lot of horse poop out of the proverbial stable.
I’m at a point that I’d rather spend my energy working towards a new union, as I think the present course is disastrous, and any attempt to salvage what we have now is futile.
Since we cannot dispell them from our midst, we must remove ourselves from them, and start anew, with an informed and active citizenry.
Maybe…
One hope that I have…actually one of several…is that people do have the capacity to learn HUGE lessons from their mistakes. That is, of course, one of the virtues of freedom.
People don’t even have to fully understand why what they did was wrong, just that it was.
Mr. Reagan was elected. That is always a hopeful sign. Polling shows that people are not decidedly who they have been conditioned to be. That is a hopeful sign.
Time will tell…
Ragspierre, that was almost 30 years ago. The American electorate are not the same people now as they were then.
I see my parents, grandparents, and other older, wiser, and more sensible people being replaced by 20 something, dumbed down hedonists, who voted for change, yet don’t even know how to count back change.
It’s a different country now. And it’s not better.
I would rather live in a society that followed the rule of law, since the Warren court, the “invented” interpretations coming out of the courts defy logic and are malignant.
The consequences have devastated our sense of order, values, and morals.
We see repeat offender felons waking for minor technicalities, states stripped of their actual authorities, and international laws usurping our constitutional principles.
It is a slap in the face to those whom have sacrificed to preserve freedom to have this nomination announced on the first day after Memorial Day.
You are more likely to pay a penalty for defending your family or property these days while the thug who broke in to rob or rape is looked on as a victim and likely to be freed to re-offend.
Judges like this one, are those whom have created this upside down reality, she needs to be opposed vigorously, yet sadly we have cowards afraid to do so in office.
I stoppped throwin’ away my vote when I voted for Perot and we got Clinton. Remember the “giant sucking sound?” How right Perot was…
Been a long day following a long few weeks, so maybe somebody has already brought it up and I just missed it.
My question now is this; Will you now allow yourself to be bound by the laws this Congress and these liberal judges invent? Why should a citizen be bound by a law made by the current Congress, when the current Congress has shown it refuses to be bound by the Constitution?
If we had heroes in office, we can’t win this fight. That mistake will take office. There is nothing that the GOP Senators can do to stop her. They SHOULD uniformly vote against her, but don’t look for even that.
What we CAN do is use this as another example of OVER-REACHING by THE ONE.
We can hang this racist and sexist nut firmly around his neck, and publicize her every chance we have.
Sad, but true.
Hmmm… Kinda puts her in the Ainski camp, too…