Friday, June 05, 2009

"if she would rule on the right side on the life issue, I might look past this racism.."

That's Rush Limbaugh, talking to Sean Hannity, about his possible newfound support for Sonia Sotomayor. Now it seems that Rush is still convinced that she's a racist. Of course, that is completely ludicrous, as I don't believe at all that Sotomayor is a racist (or a reverse racist). That being said, I'm not sure what's worse--that Rush thinks Sotomayor's a racist, or that he's apparently willing to overlook her supposed racism in the service of another potential pro-life vote on the Supreme Court.

Glad to see your principles are in check. Sigh.

HT: Althouse

5 comments:

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]I'm not sure what's worse--that Rush thinks Sotomayor's a racist, or that he's apparently willing to overlook her supposed racism in the service of another potential pro-life vote on the Supreme Court.[/quote]

Either way it seems that Rush is "wrong" in your view.

Let's remove the term "racist" from the debate (because it is not an accurate assessment) and instead replace it with the term "Assumed Inferiority" - a term that I have been using.

Rafique:

What do you call a municipal government, a lower court and a potential associate justice on the US Supreme Court who, when acting as part of a 3 judge panel did not OBJECT when the municipal government saw that none of the Black candidates who took a battery of tests but were not among the finalists for the position? THERE WERE NO CLAIMS that the test was "racially biased" against them. Instead the municipal government FEARED that they'd be sued because there were not Blacks as finalists.

Question Rafique - do you believe that "the Blacks" in question were seen as EQUALS or INFERIORS?

Rafique Tucker said...

Well, CF, the merits of the Ricci case is another debate entirely. I disagreed with a lot of the reasoning behind the decision, but I think the issue was the fairness of the test, and avoiding a lawsuit.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote] I think the issue was the fairness of the test, and avoiding a lawsuit.[/quote]

Rafique:

The "White Fire Fighters" who's promotions were thrown out filed the lawsuit.

The City of New Haven GAVE THE TEST.

How is it that there are questions about the "fairness of the test"....by the entity that GAVE THE TEST of concern to THEMSELVES?

If their goal was to "avoid a lawsuit"...they failed miserably. They now have a lawsuit that has reached the Surpreme Court.

What is it with this new standard of "preemptive avoidance of racial discrimination lawsuits" by doing acts which are racial discriminator?

Rafique Tucker said...

CF, I'm not defending the decision, I'm only pointing out what was considered by the panel. You accused Sotomayor of having a view of assumed inferiority. I'll need to check into this more, but what I understand, as Sotomayor underrstood it, her hands were tied by the law.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]as Sotomayor underrstood it, her hands were tied by the law.[/quote]

I can't disagree with you any more than I do.

Judge Sotomayor was ONE VOTE on a panel of 3 independent minds able to see what is in front of them and render a judgment accordingly.

Other judges back in the day hid behind LEGAL PRECEDENT as they denied JUSTICE to the claimants that came before them.

Don't you find it ironic that Sotomayor was captured on camera saying that "judges make policy" via their rulings and yet you and others are defending her based on the binds of precedent?

It seems MORE TRUE that Judge Sotomayor believed that since none of the Blacks made it to the top and ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF that the tests were racially discriminatory that she would go along with the city's choice to throw out the results because, ultimately, she places DIVERSITY over JUSTICE.

How can Black people demand "free and fair elections" and yet be in support of a scheme that was clearly rigged? The city did not like the RESULTS and thus they threw them out and started over.

Is this what Mugabe did?