Truemors is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Myths and Falsehoods Surrounding Sonia Sotomayor's Nomination
Share:
by Karen Hatter | June 1, 2009 at 03:32 am
1013 views | 66 Recommendations | 43 comments
Videos
This article notes Conservatives and the Republican Party, especially Right Wing elements within the Party, came out in opposition of any potential nominee for the Supreme Court that would be named by President Obama before any names had been suggested.
If confirmed, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the New York Second Circuit Court of Appeals would replace Justice David Souter, who plans to leave the bench in June 2009.
Since Judge Sotomayor has been named, it has been alleged mistruths and misinformation have occurred regarding the nominee.
Click here to read Myths and Falsehoods Surrounding the Sotomayor Nomination, from Media Matters.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Karen Hatter
All Locations, Everywhere, United States
Recommendations (66)
Jordan Yerman
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan
Rob Walker
Toronto, Canada
Blue Crush
Toronto, Canada
mudricky
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
caj1
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Pythiian1
New York, New York, United States
Spydermonkey
huntsville, Alabama, United States
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (43)
at 03:52 on June 1st, 2009
Also at NowPublic :
In Order to Form a More Perfect Union
Judge Sotomayor's Comments Mirror Justices Scalia and Alito
at 07:31 on June 2nd, 2009
Here are some truths since you tell our international friends World Net Daily is unreliable??!!
How can anyone argue these facts. Like it or not . Mr. Buchanan bucks both parties.
http://buchanan.org/blog/ :
“Judge Sotomayor, whose parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico,” writes reporter David Kirkpatrick, “has championed the importance of considering race and ethnicity in admissions, hiring and even judicial selection at almost every stage of her career.”
At Princeton, she headed up Accion Puertorriquena, which filed a complaint with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare demanding that her school hire Hispanic teachers. At Yale, she co-chaired a coalition of non-black minorities of color that demanded more Latino professors and administrators.
At Yale, she “shared the alarm of others in the group when the Supreme Court prohibited the use of quotas in university admissions in the 1978 decision Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.”
Alan Bakke was an applicant to the UC medical school at Davis who was rejected, though his test scores were higher than almost all of the minority students who were admitted. Bakke was white.
After Yale, Sotomayor joined the National Council of La Raza and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. Both promote race and ethnic preferences, affirmative action and quotas for Hispanics.
But why should Puerto Ricans like Sotomayor, who were never subjected to slavery or Jim Crow — their island was liberated from Spain in 1898 by the United States — get racial or ethnic preferences over Polish- or Portuguese-Americans?
What is the justification for this kind of discrimination?
Like Lani Guinier, the Clinton appointee rejected for reverse racism, Sonia Sotomayor is a quota queen. She believes in, preaches and practices race-based justice. Her burying the appeal of the white New Haven firefighters, who were denied promotions they had won in competitive exams, was a no-brainer for her.
In her world, equal justice takes a back seat to tribal justice.
Now, people often come out to vote for one of their own. Catholics for JFK, evangelicals for Mike Huckabee, women for Hillary Clinton, Mormons for Mitt Romney, Jews for Joe Lieberman and African-Americans for Barack Obama. That is political reality and an exercise of political freedom.
BUT TRIBAL JUSTICE IS UN AMERICAN.
In the 1950s and 1960s, this country reached consensus that denying black men and women the equal opportunity to advance and succeed must come to an end. Discrimination based on race, color or ethnicity, we agreed, was wrong.
Sotomayor, however, has an exception to the no-discrimination rule. She believes in no discrimination, unless done to white males and to benefit people like her.
How can any Republican senator vote to elevate to the Supreme Court a judge who, all her life, has believed in, preached and practiced race discrimination against white males, without endorsing the Obama-Sotomayor view that diversity trumps equal justice, and race-based justice should have its own seat on the high court?
Down the path Sotomayor would take us lies an America where Hispanic justices rule for Hispanics, black judges rule for blacks and white judges rule for white folks.
It is an America where who gets admitted to the best colleges and universities is not decided on grades and academic excellence, but on race and ethnicity, where advancement in jobs and careers depends not on aptitude and ability, but on where your grandparents came from.
Patrick Buchanan
at 08:02 on June 2nd, 2009
Queenshart, I wrote no comment stating World Net Daily was "unreliable" , as you stated above.
Please refrain from attributing statements to me that I did not make, misleading the internatonal readers here.
As you are aware, I wrote elsewhere re: World Net Daily concerning an article discussing President Obama, commenting:
It's not too surprising the Conservative World Net Daily would highlight such an article given its preoccupation with coverage of any item of criticism or negativity, now pondering the President's mental health.
.... and
Any likes or dislikes perceived by you as relates to myself are of no consequence.
The reality is World Net Daily has been at the forefront of every and anything in opposition to Barack Obama since he first emerged on the world stage as a candidate for the presidency of the United States.
An article that long distance psychoanalyzes the mental health of President Obama, long distance diagnosing an identifiably severe mental disorder, would be in keeping with the body of work previously presented by World Net Daily as relates to the President.
.... and finally
Queenshart, you wrote above:
I can post many professional people who do not care at all about politics that know this is true whether you like this source or not Karen.
Part of your statement addresses and refers to my feelings for World Net Daily in the quote ".... whether you like this source or not Karen.", with my feelings, as I stated above, being of no consequence in addressing the content of the World Net Daily and its positions of negativity as related to first Candidate and then President Obama.
My liking or disliking the WND does not affect the content of its articles, none of which could be mistaken as a stance of support for the President before his election or after, which my previous statement addressed.
at 12:37 on June 2nd, 2009
From Harpooning the Great White Wail : Racism, the Supreme Court and Right-Wing Buffoonery by Tim Wise:
Sotomayor as a Quota Hire? The Incipient Racism of the Conservative Right
But it isn't only in the assumption of white objectivity (as compared to the presumed capricious and identity-driven subjectivity of the colored folks) that suggests the ongoing presence of white racism in the Sotomayor debate. Even worse has been the way in which white commentators have jumped on the judge's nomination as evidence of affirmative action, by which they of course mean the promotion of less qualified, perhaps even unqualified, people of color to positions they don't deserve, at the expense of more qualified white men.
Although there is no objective way in which one could truly rank the most qualified persons for a Supreme Court appointment--there is, after all, no scale of brilliance that can be applied for this purpose--it is stunning to see how quickly white folks rush to impugn the capabilities of persons of color in high places, irrespective of whether they have any information to justify the attack. While white Republicans have previously praised judicial mediocrity as a positive good when the possessor of such limited skill was a white guy, any hint that a person of color is less than a certifiable Mensa member, sets them off on a rant against the compromising of standards.
So, for instance, we have paleo-bigot Pat Buchanan (who over the past few years appeared twice on a radio show hosted by an overt white supremacist), calling her an affirmative action pick and intellectual "lightweight." This, coming from a man who once praised the "genius" of Hitler.
at 13:33 on June 3rd, 2009
Excerpted quotes from Pat Buchanan's book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America published in 2006 :
- "This [immigration] is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history." [p. 5]
- "We are witnessing how nations perish. We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the deconstruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted." [p. 6]
- "Chicano chauvinists and Mexican agents have made clear their intent to take back through demography and culture what their ancestors lost through war." [p. 12]
- "[W]e are in the midst of a savage culture war in which traditionalist values have been losing ground for two generations." [p. 28]
- "The first imperative is an immediate moratorium on all immigration, such as the one we imposed from 1924 to 1965. ... But even with a moratorium, success is not assured." [p. 250-251]
at 06:20 on June 1st, 2009
Thank you for the post Karen, am not so sure about this though and can not make up my mind either way.
I am not as optimistic and cheer full as you seem to be here and of Obama in general.
I think we do need a healthy dose of objective criticism here in the interest of all involved and this wold be especial of concern to the American people.
The more I hear Obama his speeches and opinions and the more I read up on the news, the more I start to become sceptical.
at 07:25 on June 1st, 2009
Thank you for the recommend.
However, please reserve your characterization of my work here as cheerful as you are incorrect, in that the verb 'cheerful' cannot be used to describe anything I have commented on or written anywhere here.
at 07:46 on June 1st, 2009
Thank you as usual Karen, for clarifying this so nicely.
at 06:51 on June 1st, 2009
She was first recommended to the "big leagues" by a Republican president, though, as her rather prolific career went on, right-leaning opinions of her have obviously changed.
at 07:18 on June 1st, 2009
Jordan, that is a fact, the support from Republican Bush the Elder when he tapped her to serve, that many Republicans decided to forget.
Arguing for and against her at the same time might have been a confusing process, I guess.
at 09:44 on June 1st, 2009
NO MYTHS OR FALSEHOODS HERE:
10) SOTOMAYOR: ADMITS MAKING ACTIVIST POLICY FROM THE BENCH
In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application." As a judicial activist, she jokingly admits "making policy" from the bench, based on feelings or empathy or judicial precedent, not laws passed by Congress, and so she assumes the power of legislature, to make policy, legislating from the bench.
9) SOTOMAYOR: PRO-ABORTION-SUPPORTS ROE V. WADE
Although she ruled to uphold the longstanding "Mexico City Policy" which had limited funds for abortions performed overseas (until President Obama struck down that policy, now fully funding abortions overseas with our taxes), Sotomayor stands squarely in the camp of supporting and upholding the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized child killing across America and cost 50,000,000 children their lives.
Furthermore, Rev. Rob Schenck of The National Clergy Council now reports that Sotomayor was or is an active board member of a group called the "Childbirth Connection" that advocates for "reproductive rights of women," which is generally a code word for abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion, which Sotomayor has never publicly opposed. Since I was born to a single mom who courageously gave me up for adoption, and I was adopted at age three by a Christian family, I'm passionately pro-life.
8) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-GUN, ANTI-WEAPON, ANTI- 2nd AMENDMENT
In her ruling to allow government to ban privately owned weapons belonging to New York citizens, Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Maloney v. Cuomo: "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right . . . not upon that of the state." Since her crazy reading of the 2nd Amendment only forbids Congress from seizing your guns, the New York State Assembly was fully authorized to ban nunchuks, or seize ANY AND ALL of your weapons, according to Sotomayor's anti-liberty reasoning. But as a former military distinguished marksman and former captain of my rifle team at a New York State high school, I care about protecting our right to bear arms.
7) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-TEN COMMANDMENTS, BUT PRO-MUSLIM?
ACLJ Attorney Jay Sekulow said of Sotomayor: "She is left in judicial philosophy, ranges much further left than Justice Ginsburg or Justice Souter . . . I just had a case where the Court was unanimous, it was involving the 10 commandments issue, and the court was unanimous 9 to 0, but I would not expect that if Judge Sotomayor was confirmed, that it would probably have been 8 to 1. She has a very, very strict view of church-state separation, and she was aggressive on this idea of a 'living constitution.'" Meanwhile she ruled one Muslim prisoner had a right to receive the Eid ul Fitr feast (a Muslim holiday meal) in his prison cell, and another Muslim prisoner had a right to access a Muslim chaplain, which is fine if she treats other faiths equally. But I personally suspect Sotomayor would rule to disallow public prayers offered "in Jesus name" but allow prayers to Allah, just like Obama's other judicial nominee David Hamilton.
6) SOTOMAYOR: SAVIOR OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN
NOW President Kim Gandy quickly endorsed Sotomayor, saying: "This morning we will celebrate, and this afternoon NOW will launch our 'Confirm Her' campaign to ensure the swift confirmation of the next Supreme Court Justice." There's no way this liberal group would endorse Sotomayor unless she were pro-lesbian and pro-abortion, as Gandy openly advocates on the NOW web-site.
5) SOTOMAYOR: OVERRULED 33 OF 44 VOTES BY SUPREME COURT
Sotomayor has had 5 decisions reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, 3 of which have been reversed. One of these was her aggressive pro-environmental anti-energy decision, another was her aggressive pro-litigation anti-business decision, which was overturned unanimously. She has carried only 11 of 44 possible votes during those cases. Chief Justice Roberts once stated that her method of reading the statute in question "flies in the face of the statutory language." Dean Mat Staver of Liberty Law School cites these reasons to oppose Sotomayor, saying, "No one ever expected President Barack Obama to nominate someone who respects the original intent of the Constitution."
4) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORITISM BY RACE OR GENDER, NOT LAW
Sotomayor told the Berkeley Law School: "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging . . .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." It is no surprise, therefore, she ruled against white Firefighters of New Haven, throwing out the results of a promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified. She denied promotion for the white firefighters who performed well on the exam, and gave minorities who failed the exam favorable consideration toward promotion. Sotomayor promotes aggressive affirmative action, promoting race or gender, not merit. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed this case in April 2009, and is expected to overturn her again.
3) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORS INTERNATIONAL LAW OVER AMERICAN LAW
Opposing a U.S. Congressional bill that would forbid activist judges from citing international law (instead of applying American law) in their decisions, Sotomayor wrote the controversial introduction for The International Judge, a book that promotes, in her words, "developing an international rule of law and institution-building" and idealizes the "pioneers who work tirelessly to bring these institutions from their incipience to their maturity." No doubt she will vote with Justice Ginsberg, who believes American judges should sometimes look toward international law rather than the U.S. Constitution.
2) SOTOMAYOR: EVEN THE LIBERALS CALL HER A BULLY
Her own former clerk, liberal Jeffrey Rosen, now legal affairs editor for The New Republic, said she has "has an inflated opinion of herself" and is "kind of a bully on the bench." Another clerk who worked on the 2nd Circuit said she's: "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench . . .She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."
1) SOTOMAYOR: BASEBALL BIAS FOR NEW YORK YANKEES!
As a native of South Bronx, Sotomayor's hidden home-town bias became manifest in her love for the New York Yankees, judicially favoring her "Bronx Bombers" over teams from all other cities. No kidding! When ruling to end the 1995 baseball strike, she sided with the player's union against team owners (who sought parity among all teams with an talent-sharing salary cap). Instead Sotomayor created bias in favor of rich teams who can afford to buy up all the good free agents. So when the New York Yankees hogged 4 titles and 6 pennants in the 8 years after her ruling, with payrolls averaging three times most other team salaries, you can blame Sotomayor for creating that competitive imbalance. I understand why Yankees fans might celebrate her promotion to the Supreme Court, but baseball fans from all other cities should complain loudly against her confirmation!
WHY DID SEVEN REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR HER?
In 1991, President George H.W. Bush was forced to pick Sotomayor, in a back-room deal manipulated by powerful New York Senator Patrick Moynihan, but Bush Sr. likely regrets this just like he later regretted nominating Justice Souter. In 1998, Sotomayor was barely confirmed to the 2nd Circuit Court under Bill Clinton, but only seven current 2009 Republicans voted for Sotomayor then: Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Robert Bennett (R-Utah). They were misled into joining all Democrats to push Sotomayor through by a vote of 68-28.
HumanEvents.com
at 09:58 on June 1st, 2009
Please read the linked article to note the falsehoods you have listed here.
at 10:42 on June 1st, 2009
"Falsehoods"? Not even "differences of opinion"?
:"Falsehoods"? Such as the Ricci decision isn't reverse racism being institutionalized by a judge unconscious of her own racism and sexual and ethnic chauvinism?
This reverse racism is exactly what Malcolm X decried. Her Ricci decision is the means for a minority to institute race-based quotas, a clear violation since Bakki of our civil rights.
Such as: 2) SOTOMAYOR: EVEN THE LIBERALS CALL HER A BULLY
Her own former clerk, liberal Jeffrey Rosen, now legal affairs editor for The New Republic, said she has "has an inflated opinion of herself" and is "kind of a bully on the bench." Another clerk who worked on the 2nd Circuit said she's: "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench . . .She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."
If Obama feels he has to pick a woman and a liberal, he could do a lot better.
at 11:03 on June 1st, 2009
From NYTimes Continues to Mislead on Ricci :
Re: the Ricci decision, as reported in the Times:
The article did not note, however, that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in an opinion written by one of Sotomayor's colleagues and joined by Sotomayor and three other judges, that precedent in interpreting Title VII's employment discrimination prohibitions compelled the decision in the Ricci case.
The city of New Haven, Connecticut, has argued that it was not implementing "racial quotas," but rather was, in the words of SCOTUSblog contributor and H&R partner Kevin Russell, "simply trying to avoid a violation of Title VII's disparate impact provision." In addition to the 2nd Circuit ruling, Supreme Court Justice David Souter -- whom Sotomayor would replace -- made comments during oral argument in which he identified what he said was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation" faced by the city of New Haven in its efforts to comply with Title VII's prohibitions on employment discrimination.
at 11:41 on June 1st, 2009
Apologism for blatant racism.... Part of a larger trend here in America
http://my.nowpublic.com/world/weekly-riot-return-systemic-racism
at 13:07 on June 1st, 2009
Cries of reverse racism, emanating from many, telegraphs a fear of an unknown future in a demographically changing America, where an assumed priviledge has traditionally ruled the land.
at 17:41 on June 1st, 2009
Karen this is dellutional at best and racist for certain. 10% of the population in the US taking over the land and taking revenge on inoccent people because they are the White majority and some few of them had ancestors that where racist and oppressors them self?
at 18:00 on June 1st, 2009
The United States Census Bureau changed the date for all groups known as minorities, that is all groups indentifying as non-White/Caucasian minorities, with Latino/Hispanics the largest growing group within America, outnumbering those considering themselves as White/Caucasian Americans from occurring in the year 2042 instead of 2050, eight years earlier than projected.
The America.gov link above is dated August 15, 2008.
For decades, members of the Conservative Right, like Pat Buchanan, in America in 2050: Another Country, have lamented the reality of this occurrence, with an obvious dread at the prospect.
From Mr. Buchanan's article:
Moreover, as multiculturalism has captured our schools and colleges, immigrant children will have prejudices and grievances against America and the West reinforced as they learn. The academic elite that controls these schools already paints America as a nation with a rancid history of genocide, slavery, racism, oppression and imperialism.
As immigrant children grow up, who will teach them to love and cherish America? Will they not come to exhibit that same sullen hostility to our country we see erupting at soccer games with Mexico today? There, Mexican fans, whether in the Los Angeles Coliseum or in Guadalajara, curse our players, shout down our national anthem and chant “Osama! Osama!” when the Mexican team scores.
at 18:07 on June 1st, 2009
I read a few articles that stated violence and racism between the minorities, especialy from Black American toward Hispanics.
I think it is normal that the majority is holding most positions of power, once the Hispanic will be the Majority of the US they will hold most positions of power as well. I see that a s normal and nothing wrong with it either.
Are you going to turn against the Hispanic and accuse them for their Spanish conquistador ancestors once they will be the Majority?
I think the problem is not getting solved one way or the other until all parties and groups reject racism and promote an education that focuses on Humanity as a whole and on justice for all as well as equality and unity.
at 18:39 on June 1st, 2009
I have no idea what the question about Spanish Conquistadors and Hispanics has to do with my statements.
As I've said, for decades, the Right Wing Conservatives, White supremacist/nationalists and others have warned of the 'browning' of America, as it has been called.
The concerns for this reality, among those identifying as White that view this new dynamic as a horrifying reality, can be found among the Conservative Council of Citizens, which states, in part, as point two of its principles:
We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character.
Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and his organization, Bill O'Reilly and others also express their concerns for this coming reality.
Any questions re: this coming event may be better addressed by those who have organized around these concerns with an eye toward calamity.
at 19:18 on June 1st, 2009
Karen the KKK are a few extremist that I would certainly not take serious what so ever.
To base once opinion on the talk or actions of some extremist and radicals is hardly objective nor can one call this having a balanced view. It is as ridiculous as using Mugabe and his togs to make an opinion of all Black African and judge them by it. Or Idi-Amin Dada would be another such extremist.
Lets be real and objective.
It is merely looking for blame and excuses rather then truth and solutions.
Why the Conquistador analogy.
at 19:39 on June 1st, 2009
Paschen, when I wrote above of there being a fear of the changing demographics occurring in America, you wrote:
Karen this is dellutional at best and racist for certain.
All those that have espoused their rantings of doom and gloom may be delusional.
National security concerns for 'one issue' extremists, like abortion, as had been reported by Homeland Security, have been, in the most recent case, been proven a true concern, with someone now being held in relation to the killing of the abortion doctor in Kansas while he was in his church. The man being held belonged to an extremist anti government group.
The 'lone wolf' element of any so called extremist group has been identified as the greatest danger nor can they be referred to as a 'few' when there are 888 identified hate groups nationwide in the United States, with many non member supporters, with the numbers of members and supporters growing since the election of the nation's first African American president.
at 20:16 on June 1st, 2009
I do not say that a hate group is not dangerous, see the Taliban or the FLN, however we can not use a hate group as a base to judge a people nor as justification for reverse racism or hate.
Every transition brings fear with it and those are usually put to rest after the realization comes in that there is nothing to fear. Of course there are transitions that should be worrisome, however a demographic transition for one ethnical group or a religion becoming a majority over another is by it self nothing to worry about.
I have been living as a religious minority as well as an ethnical one all my life and Never had a problem nor felt discriminated, because I simply refused to be. And education is the best way out, why most well educated people do not adder to racism nor to fears.
There are exceptions of course.
Obama is in my view no different then any other President of the US, he has good and bad sides to him self and he is first of all a politician that knows how to play the game. Whether he is a good or bad President, that only time will tell and history will judge him as it did all his predecessors. It is clear that the US will have more and more President out of mixed races or being Black American and especially Hispanic will dominate the US politics with in a generation.
I am sceptical of all leaders though, May they be French, Russian, German, Japanese, Chinese or American. I do become more sceptical though when ever euphoria is involved.
Critics are healthy and should always be part of the process. Those are the pillar of Democracy and Justice.
I would in this day and age and in light of a global world and view stop using the term African-America, since you imply by that black, however this is discriminating to all White African-American that actually are born in African and held an African Citizenship and immigrated to the US later on in their life. Black French are not French African either, they where born in France by French Parents and are French.
This is not meant as an offence nor an attack Karen it is my Opinion as an African-European.
My grand Parents are Berber (North African), Prussian (German) and Huguenots (French). I am born and raised in African, still hold Cameroon Citizenship. I can rightfully claim to be African, not Obama though, he is American.
at 21:16 on June 1st, 2009
The claims of reverse racism, mainly decried by those who identify as White in America, have increased as the 'browning' of America has continued.
The latest clamoring among the Conservative Right regarding the almost assured confirmation of the nation's first Latina Supreme Court Justice, may indicate the known fear that has always been professed by the Right regarding immigration.
Extrapolation always has it's dangers but, it is predicted immigration issues will be coming up before the Supreme Court soon, in the future. This may be an outcome the Right may see as somehow tied to some adverse decision, courtesy of Justice Sotomayor, a possible concern of theirs, among other issues.
In the case of the use of the appellation African American, many of those who descended from the enslaved brought out of Africa and dispersed around the world, those who were forcibly settled here, in America, reserve the right to identify with the land mass that would most likely have been their homeland, had they not been brought here.
As an individual, I will continue to identify with the homeland that was denied my family for at least six generations on my maternal side and an unknown number on my paternal side.
Your beliefs are your own and I take no offense.
President Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was born of an African man from Kenya and an American woman. He is African American.
at 21:51 on June 1st, 2009
I do accept and respect your point and reasoning about this issue, I just have trouble supporting it, since it would open the doors to a snow ball effect turning into an avalanche.
Such claims are what has caused the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Sri-Lanka conflict as well as the Serbian conflicts and several other conflicts.
I think we have to come to term with the past and accept the present and embrace it. Or we never get out of this hate, racism and phobias that prevail still today in many countries and cultures as well as religions.
I fear that one day because of this perception and claim some one is going to invade Africa from the US claiming it to be rightfully theirs and we end up with anther Israeli-Palestinian stile conflict.
I do not think that would be healthy nor desirable. No one would have though a century ago that Israel would be and that this would end up in such a disaster either.
This sort of talk and perception does open the door for more such conflicts.
at 22:56 on June 1st, 2009
I have come to terms with the past, embracing the present and accepting where I am and who I am.
My comments were not offered in an attempt to solicit support nor do I agree with your assessments and the logic you've employed to address my African American identity.
at 19:27 on June 2nd, 2009
You address my white identity by implying that, even with two decades of being married to a black woman, and having worked with the inner city in LA, that my objection to Affirmative Action is somehow based on my "fear" of the "browning of America".
I have no fear of it. Ask my Latin students in LA or my black in-laws.
But I have a fear of applying quotas to patch over problems of today rooted in the past because we don't have the real faith to overcome them.
And, I will not cede my right to a job because I am not a member of the quota, nor do I expect anyone else to be subject to quotas.
So, to paraphrase you, my comments have not been offered in an attempt to solicit support nor do I agree with your assessments and the logic you've employed to address my European- American identity.
at 08:29 on June 3rd, 2009
Roy, I wrote above:
The concerns for this reality (re: the 'browning' of America), among those identifying as White that view this new dynamic as a horrifying reality ....
If you are not among those described, then what was written did not "address" you.
at 10:44 on June 3rd, 2009
Roy, I agree with you in that I also object to Affirmative Action policy. Nevertheless, you might find these additional Affirmative Action (Pros & Cons, Arguments) from BalancedPolitics, interesting.
at 20:20 on June 2nd, 2009
Karen you may totally have misunderstood my comment. Or I may have failed to make my self clear. However it could also be an unwillingness to understand.
Wish ever it may be, has little relevance any longer.