May 28, 2009
Here is the nomination for the next justice of the Supreme Court.
The honorable Sonia Sotomayor was chosen by President Obama to potentially serve on the highest court of the land, pending nomination. Now, I thought and still think that she was a good, and clearly somewhat safe pick. I don’t mind the fact that the pick is safe, since there will be others during the Obama presidency. ( I am going out on a limb and claim that he will be a two term president and he will make at least one more nomination)
What gets me is how fast the tide has changed against this pick. One of the somewhat liberal sites I read for fun is the Confluence. I disagree with a lot of what transpired over there post election, since their movement has seemingly coalesced into a pity party. It’s funny that with some frontpagers, they have no problem posting my comments, but a certain clown (his words not mine) is obviously intimidated into answering the call to actually have a spirited forum debate on issues that he posts on.
One of the current topics is on the nomination and the insidious behavior of our President to cheat, lie and steal from everyone. When the nomination was not known, here is a sample of the comments. This one is in regard to comments about her (being Sotomayor) looks
cwaltz, on May 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm Said: There is alot of pressure on women to appear a particular way. It doesn’t help that many women are just as guilty as men at judging a book by its proverbial cover.
Personally, Judge Sotomayer looks perfectly fine to me. Even more important is the fact that she has opinions and isn’t afraid to be vocal regarding those opinions. I can’t believe anyone would consider that a detriment, particularly in a judge. Isn’t the idea to argue or debate an idea on their merits? I was always under that impression perhaps since the courts themselves take the time to issue opinions and dissenting opinions.
The reason why this is so funny that they are up in arms now is that this flies against the PUMA provision of 51 percent. One of the reasons I get their funny form of of temporary time-out is that I bring up the notion of Identity Politics into the discussion. Synthesizing women down to just gender becomes defeatist to many of the movements that they (and sometimes I) find valuable.
But, Sonia Sotomayor should be right up their particular alley. She is a woman and if you listen to some of the commentators, thats all that matters. Here is a former frontpager expressing that thought…
I would like the New Agenda to gather with other like-minded groups to form a large voting bloc, made of women and men who understand that it is time for women to be first. I would like this voting bloc to demand of both Parties that at least 30% of the candidates put forth in 2010, and every election cycle going forward, be women. I would like this bloc to withhold its votes, time and money from both parties until this is done. I would also like this voting bloc to demand that the ERA be re-passed and ratified by 2012, and to withhold its votes, time and money from both parties until this is done. Other ways we can make her voices heard are boycotts of press outlets and companies that promote misogyny; demanding that history books include and honor the contributions of women; coordinate work stoppages in companies that practice sexism against their employees; and so on. There are so many possibilities, if we will only band together and act as one.
This viewpoint was furthered in another post earlier this week on why Males rule the world and what they can do about it
What are the key pieces of a strategic plan to challenge and dispel these errant legitimizing myths? I propose that there are three prongs to the approach:
- Support (supporting women in their quests for leadership)
- Education (providing information and education to society about the inaccuracies of legitimizing myths, the benefits of female leadership, and promoting the positive role models that can impact and change cultural stereotypes about women in leadership)
- Recruitment (active recruitment of women for political leadership)
If it comes down to a question of what comes first, women or ideologies, what should we choose? If we choose ideologies, we are potentially promoting continued male social dominance since males control the message at the moment. If we choose women first, and we can successfully erode male social dominance, we will then be in control of the message. I say choose women first.
The problem is, when that is the choice, you still are never satisfied. Maybe the post should be about just killing all the men. HelenK seems to love that solution, or at least the Lorena Bobbitt approach.
So, this strategy of course backfires when you have a woman against another woman, as I pointed out, or doesn’t work out so well when the only woman doesn’t support your (somewhat narrow and myopic) point of view. Now, instead of being happy that the stated goal of appointing as many women as possible to positions of power, they can only ATTEMPT TO SPECULATE that she will not be friendly to abortion issues and use that as a wedge. Or, JUST LIKE THE OTHER WOMAN THEY CRITIQUE, THEY TEAR DOWN A WOMAN! I thought that the post just said…well forget about it…
bostonboomer, on May 28th, 2009 at 12:51 am Said: I always knew Obama would find a way to appoint an anti-choice person to the court. That he would find a woman to do the dirty work doesn’t surprise me one bit. I feel the same way. Young women don’t seem to appreciate what women fought for back in the 70s. Now they are going to find out what it was like back when I was a young woman and we didn’t have access to birth control or safe abortions. Good luck to all those young women who voted for this nightmare we have in the WH now.
Well, Dr. BostonBoomer (since the front page indicated she finished her defense) you got what you wanted in the “elect a woman” (since gender is first) issue. Maybe you should wait until she actually rules on the issue (or at least wait for conformation hearings) before you tear her apart.
What is clear is the inability to be rational on the nomination and on President Obama ( I know that part must just kill you) and his policies. Just like you accuse anyone who supports Obama of drinking the kool-aid, (which is racist, since everyone knows that minorities drink kool-aid and other sugar water drinks, which are part of the hidden white agenda to kill blacks with diseases that are self inflicted…)
Vodpod videos no longer available.
but it seems to have the reverse effect. Any choice by Obama, is a bad choice, cloaked by a political two-step designed to deny precisely those who failed to vote for him. Your blinders prevent you from seeing the benefits of political action of Obama. The one that is the chip shot gimme is your own HRC. Without Obama, there is no her.
But, of course, with conspiracy theories, you have to have someone spreading the theories that people follow.
Prolix, on November 20th, 2008 at 7:42 am Said:
Morning Riverdaughter — another wonderful product of your hypergraphia.
Here are two theories:
1. Obama wants to have as many well-known and respected souls on board as possible when the ship is state is floundering in order to deflect and defend his stolen turn at the helm.
2. He was trying to put a knife in the back of Hillary and Bill by leaking the SoS in order to eventually leak they had “failed” his conflicts vetting. The CDS of the press would have accepted it without question and chewed on it for weeks thereby politically neutering them to some extent. He forgot Hillary and Bill wrote the manual on close-in knife fights.
Well, of course, fail to give credit to Obama for crossing the aisle and extending a hand to make the best cabinet possible, in the land of the Confluence, the mere mention of Obama sends you to the spam filter. That is how powerful some people dislike him. And really?? Why didn’t she use it like Lorena Bobbitt when Bill was spreading his “message” on the blue dress?
But, she is considered strong for her ability to forgive an unpardonable sin in a marriage. The point here is the PUMAS are able to overlook that sin, but they roast Barack for “perceived sexism”, especially acts that are not his own.
BUT, THE BIGGEST SEXIST ACT A PERSON CAN DO TO THEIR PARTNER, they just seemingly sweep it under the rug. (Just wait…at least once a day, someone will mention Bill Clinton and make some snide comment about Barack. Does anyone but me remember Bill fucking Clinton sitting on his hands when a little issue named Rwanda sprung up on his watch? I voted for the man, but let’s no act like he was Jesus or something.
But it is not just the liberal section attacking her, the Conservatives are on the prowl as well.
Court Watch: As GOP Hangs Back, Conservatives Attack Sotomayor
By Garance Franke-Ruta
Only one Republican senator, Pat Roberts of Kansas, has come out so far and said he’ll vote against Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, but conservative pundits and interest groups are already working overtime to make her nomination a subject of controversy. Radio host Rush Limbaugh and former House speaker Newt Gingrich have both dubbed her a “racist” for her views on the impact of difference on judicial decision-making within a diverse society, while interest groups and even one potential GOP presidential candidate are using her nomination to raise funds.
That’s the story moving online today.
So, while I get banned for suggesting that Identity Politics are the key to helping building coalitions between groups to get actual change, PUMAS are essentially joining their conservative doppelgangers to attempt to oust Sotomayor or spread the rumor that she was a smokescreen in deference to minority groups, so he can get his true hidden candidate on board. (I stated on the Confluence that I wanted — Leah Ward Sears, (chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, African American woman). Emory JD, 1980; Univ. of Virginia, LL.M, 1995) as the pick, but that Sotomayor would be another good choice. There is always some sinister method, some smoke arising that we should be concerned with. But they were ready to jump into the sack with McCain/Palin.
Here is the racism argument that they are so worried about and the reason why the answer she gave is the one that we should want.
No! No! No! and No! While these problems and many more have continued for decades, without nary a peep from these fine gentlemen, what is it that has finally shaken them to their core and made them realize racism is a serious moral problem worth speaking out and fighting against? It is a single comment made by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor explaining that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
The nerve! How could she?
Let’s look at those words one more time. She did not say a wise Latina woman WOULD reach a better conclusion. She tentatively HOPED; and HOPED that someone with this kind of experience might make a better decision not ALL THE TIME, simply MORE OFTEN THAN NOT.
If no one is happy, that means, deep down, everyone was happy. You may not have gotten what you wanted, but wait to see if it was what you NEEDED. The fact that both sides are up in arms gives me hope that this was a good pick.
UPDATED: Here is another thing that gets me. If she was good enough for Bill, why isn’t she good enough now?
She knows what the eff she’s doing. The Princeton and Yale grad has served under the Bush senior and Clinton administrations, and her supporters contend this appointment was a long time coming.
As CNN points out…
Sonia Sotomayor, who is on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was named a U.S. District Court judge by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and was elevated to her current seat by President Bill Clinton.
Your BIG DAWG put her in the position to be selected. Can we blame Bill if it falls apart?