Thursday, May 28, 2009

Bring it On Racist Tancredo! Silly Smear Machine Republicans Like You Who Live in Glass Houses Should NOT Call the Honorable Judge Sotomayor a Racist!

Racist Tom Tancredo, the guy who called Miami a 3rd world country, the racist who told people in El Paso concerned about a fence dividing up their land to move to Mexico and, to top it off, in March he admitted the Immigration issue IS about Race.
In March, Tancredo said, "Throughout history, people who are NOT white Anglo-Saxon have become American by adopting a white Anglo-Saxon culture." He insists all minority immigrants have to become white northern Europeans if they want to assimilate to become Americans. What a racist nutcase!

Now this evil nutcase has the absolute gall to call the honorable justice Sotomayor a racist. I say to the evil Tancredo, "Bring it on Racist!"

Why is this nutcase (and others like him, like Beck and Limpbaugh) saying this?

Apparently they got their chonies in a bunch because the honorable Judge Sotomayor said, "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."
Not that racists like Tancredo care, Sotomayor was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining race and sex discrimination cases. As a former Bush Justice Department lawyer John Yoo similarly stressed, the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him" and argued that Thomas' work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the less fortunate acquired through personal experience. Additionally, Justice Sam Alito has talked about the importance of his proud Italian heritage when he has made his decisions.
Are racists like Tancredo, Beck and Limpbaugh in a time-warp? Do they not consider other Justices' comments when they make their blantant accusations? Do they not remember their own racist diatribes?

It is times like these that I appreciate the sanity of comments by Senators like John McCain in supporting a very qualified candidate like the Honorable Judge Sotomayor. Comments by the likes of Tancredo, Beck or Limpbaugh are not needed and instead, prove to divide vs rationalize. I almost feel sorry for these extreme Right Wing zealots. They do not have a clue. They only make the wedge between Latinos/Women VS Republicans even wider.

As long as the Republican party is controlled by these right wing extremists, we Latinos will NEVER, EVER Vote for your Candidates Again!!!

I guess that is what these extremist Republicans want!


Dee said...

I just sent Sen. John Cornyn a thank you note:

(CNN) — A top Senate Republican is taking aim at recent statements from conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich suggesting Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a "racist."

"I think it's terrible," Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told NPR's "All Things Considered" Thursday. "This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.”

Dee said...


The NRSC chief also brushed off the Limbaugh and Gingrich statements while noting neither man holds an elected office.

"Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don't think it’s appropriate. I certainly don't endorse it. I think it’s wrong," he said.

Dee said...

I just hope Sen. Cornyn sticks to his words and does NOT back-peddle with an apology and a kiss to their hynies.

Dee said...

Here is her entire

excerpts from her speech:
Who am I? I am a "Newyorkrican." For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.

Like many other immigrants to this great land, my parents came because of poverty and to attempt to find and secure a better life for themselves and the family that they hoped to have. They largely succeeded. For that, my brother and I are very grateful. The story of that success is what made me and what makes me the Latina that I am. The Latina side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family through our shared experiences and traditions.

For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandules y pernil - rice, beans and pork - that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events. My Latina identity also includes, because of my particularly adventurous taste buds, morcilla, -- pig intestines, patitas de cerdo con garbanzo -- pigs' feet with beans, and la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito, pigs' tongue and ears. I bet the Mexican-Americans in this room are thinking that Puerto Ricans have unusual food tastes. Some of us, like me, do. Part of my Latina identity is the sound of merengue at all our family parties and the heart wrenching Spanish love songs that we enjoy. It is the memory of Saturday afternoon at the movies with my aunt and cousins watching Cantinflas, who is not Puerto Rican, but who was an icon Spanish comedian on par with Abbot and Costello of my generation. My Latina soul was nourished as I visited and played at my grandmother's house with my cousins and extended family. They were my friends as I grew up. Being a Latina child was watching the adults playing dominos on Saturday night and us kids playing loteria, bingo, with my grandmother calling out the numbers which we marked on our cards with chick peas.

Dee said...


Now, does any one of these things make me a Latina? Obviously not because each of our Carribean and Latin American communities has their own unique food and different traditions at the holidays. I only learned about tacos in college from my Mexican-American roommate. Being a Latina in America also does not mean speaking Spanish. I happen to speak it fairly well. But my brother, only three years younger, like too many of us educated here, barely speaks it. Most of us born and bred here, speak it very poorly.

If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major, I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means. For example, I could define Latinos as those peoples and cultures populated or colonized by Spain who maintained or adopted Spanish or Spanish Creole as their language of communication. You can tell that I have been very well educated. That antiseptic description however, does not really explain the appeal of morcilla - pig's intestine - to an American born child. It does not provide an adequate explanation of why individuals like us, many of whom are born in this completely different American culture, still identify so strongly with those communities in which our parents were born and raised.

America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl" -- a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity - is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puertorriqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.

Dee said...


I was born in the year 1954. That year was the fateful year in which Brown v. Board of Education was decided. When I was eight, in 1961, the first Latino, the wonderful Judge Reynaldo Garza, was appointed to the federal bench, an event we are celebrating at this conference. When I finished law school in 1979, there were no women judges on the Supreme Court or on the highest court of my home state, New York. There was then only one Afro-American Supreme Court Justice and then and now no Latino or Latina justices on our highest court. Now in the last twenty plus years of my professional life, I have seen a quantum leap in the representation of women and Latinos in the legal profession and particularly in the judiciary. In addition to the appointment of the first female United States Attorney General, Janet Reno, we have seen the appointment of two female justices to the Supreme Court and two female justices to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of my home state. One of those judges is the Chief Judge and the other is a Puerto Riqueña, like I am. As of today, women sit on the highest courts of almost all of the states and of the territories, including Puerto Rico. One Supreme Court, that of Minnesota, had a majority of women justices for a period of time.
As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women. In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge, the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%. Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge. So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly. These figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.

Dee said...

Let us not forget that between the appointments of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 and Justice Ginsburg in 1992, eleven years passed. Similarly, between Justice Kaye's initial appointment as an Associate Judge to the New York Court of Appeals in 1983, and Justice Ciparick's appointment in 1993, ten years elapsed. Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court. In 1992 when I joined the bench, there were still two out of 13 circuit courts and about 53 out of 92 district courts in which no women sat. At the beginning of September of 2001, there are women sitting in all 13 circuit courts. The First, Fifth, Eighth and Federal Circuits each have only one female judge, however, out of a combined total number of 48 judges. There are still nearly 37 district courts with no women judges at all. For women of color the statistics are more sobering. As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only two were African-American women and two Hispanic women. Of the 641 district court judges only twelve were African-American women and eleven Hispanic women. African-American women comprise only 1.56% of the federal judiciary and Hispanic-American women comprise only 1%. No African-American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal circuits. And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.

Sort of shocking, isn't it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities. I need not remind this audience that Judge Paez of your home Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, has had the dubious distinction of having had his confirmation delayed the longest in Senate history. These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.

This weekend's conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate.

Dee said...


Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to MANY PATERNALISTIC LAWS and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement.

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I WONDER whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor -- I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area - Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.

Dee said...


That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

Dee said...


In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. SECOND, I 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

Dee said...


I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

Vicente Duque said...

A World of Idiots : George W. Bush, Tom Tancredo, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanam, the Racist Guys at Fox News - Millions of Village Idiots voted Bush

Tom Tancredo, Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanam are attacking Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Imbecility is very abundant. One day several years ago, The Great Journalist and TV Editorialist Cenk Uygur ( of the Young Turks ) said that the World is full of Idiots like Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush. And that not only the White House was full of Idiots but those that voted for George W. Bush are Village Idiots. He said that on TV and on the Huffington Post.

I fully agreed at the time with Cenck Uygur, and he is one of my most beloved Journalists, like Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Frank Rich ( of the New York Times ) and many other Great Ladies and Gentlemen.

And now enter the Racists : Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanam, Newt Gingrich and the Idiots of Fox News that interview them. What can you expect of such low Intelligence and such Racist Dirt, the Lowest Scum ??

That is why I decided to work my RACIALITY.COM to combat such imbeciles, and the Extreme Evangelical Right Wing that is the base of the Republican Party. There are good Evangelicals and even Intelligent Evangelicals that are my friends and even best friends.

But there are other Creationist Idiots, and I develop an Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and the Birth of the Human Races and I have to waste a lot of time, wading through the Garbage of Creationist anti Evolutionists in YouTube and in Google.

So do not pay attention to Idiot Tom Tancredo.

And returning to George W. Bush, he was an idiot of such magnitude that he had to be massaged with Bible Quotes so that he attacked Innocent People. Hundreds of Thousands of Innocent People have died because of his Imbecility. Even Women, Children and the Old in airstrikes.

Meanwhile Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney laugh all the way to the bank counting their profits as shareholders of the Military Industrial Complex, Oil Interests and Contractors of the Defense Department in the Invaded and Occupied Tribal, Illiterate and Backward Countries of Poor People in Pajamas that do not understand the Racist Genocide against them.

Yes, Racist Genocide, Racist Mass Murder, Racist Extermination, Racist Holocaust.

Three Million Murdered People in Vietnam was not enough !!

Vicente Duque

Dee said...

I think Judge Sotomayor's speech is brilliant and insightful!

Sherilynn Ifill agrees:

Judge Sotomayor's speech is, in fact, an excellent meditation on how the experiences of judges might affect how they approach aspects of judicial decision-making. It explores the important, and too-little examined reality that judicial deliberations can be affected by a judge's background, perspective and experience.

In the next sentence immediately following the passage above, Judge Sotomayor says, "Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society."

Could she have been referring to Buck v. Bell, the 1927 case in which Justice Holmes -- widely regarded as perhaps the most brilliant justice in the Supreme Court's history -- upheld the state's plan to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old white woman, who was accused of being congenitally retarded. Buck's main crime seems to have been the fact that she'd had a child out of wedlock.

In any case, Justice Holmes upheld the sterilization order, emphatically and coldly stating, "three generations of imbeciles is enough." Does anyone seriously believe that a woman, and especially a woman of color "with the richness of her experiences" would not have "reach[ed] a better conclusion " than that adopted by Justice Holmes in 1927?

In fact Buck v. Bell is the perfect example of how a "WISE OLD [white] MAN" got it WRONG in a way that a woman judge or a racial minority most likely would not.

Dee said...

The example Ifill details from Judge Sotomayor's speech is brilliant!

It explains that Judges are human. Even brilliant old white men like Oliver Wendell Holmes was WRONG in using his good ole boy experiences to deliver such an incorrect judgement in the Buck v. Bell case.

It is critical we have diversity on the Supreme Court. Wise decisions come from Wise Men and Women of ALL Colors/Ethnicities discussing and making decisions on the Rule of Law for ALL People. We are a Diverse Culture of EQUALS. We are NO LONGER subjects of the good ole boy decision makers.

Dee said...

More from Ifill:

What Gingrich and others decry in Judge Sotomayor should be applauded. Judge Sotomayor has the humility to recognize the difficulty of achieving true and pure impartiality. Instead, as she pointed out in her speech, "[t]he aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."

Unlike so many judges who by virtue of being white and male simply assume their impartiality, Judge Sotomayor recognizes that all judges are affected by their background and their life experiences.

Ironically, it was Justice Cardozo who recognized this when he said, "[t]he great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men, do not turn aside in their course, and pass the judge by." Justice Cardozo concluded that "[n]o effort or revolution of the mind will overthrow utterly and at all times the empire of ... [a judge's] subconscious loyalties.

Dee said...

More from Ifill:

Justice Thomas is the perfect example of how hard it can be for a judge to lay aside the personal experiences that shape his worldview. His views about the affirmative action cases that come before him are shaped quite clearly by what he regards as the self-sufficient dignity of his hard-working grandfather and the humiliation he says he felt when others believed his scholarly accomplishments were the result of affirmative action.

White judges are also shaped by their background and experiences. They needn't ever speak of it, simply because their whiteness and gender insulates them from the presumption of partiality and bias that is regularly attached to women judges and judges of color when it comes to matters of race and gender.

Only a judge who is conscious and fully engaged with the reality of how her experiences may bear on her approach to the facts of a case, or sense of social justice, or vision of constitutional interpretation, should be entrusted to sit on the most influential and powerful court in our nation.

Dee said...

Ifill concludes:

Judge Sotomayor's speech is one of the most honest and compelling statements about judicial impartiality we're likely to hear from a judge of her stature.

It ends with this humble observation:

"Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I re-evaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences, but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

It's entirely appropriate to question Judge Sotomayor about this speech at her confirmation hearings. She is evidently more than capable of explaining in compelling, clear language what precisely she wanted to convey in this speech. But Judge Sotomayor is not a racist.

It is an insult of unimaginable proportion to unleash this charge on her, based on one sentence from her Berkeley, California, speech. It is not just irresponsible to make this charge against a sitting federal appeals court judge based on this flimsy record; it is -- and here I'll break the taboo -- RACIST to do so.

Vicente Duque said...

Dee :

I am gathering dozens of Videos and articles of the press about Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Some people like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and Cenk Uygur are laughing and laughing at the Hyprocrisy or Republicans, because the Reps have said the same stuff that Sonia says in her "Horror" Videos.

Judges of the Supreme Court and Republican Senators have said exactly the same stuff as Sonia in other contexts.

Even George H. Bush the father of our beloved Bush has said exactly the same words that the Trilogy of Evil NPR : Newt, Pat and Rush condemn.

If Tom Tancredo hates the Non Anglo Saxons and non Nordic Whites then he should start by commiting suicide and improving the American Race, he is more Mediterranean like Brutus and Casius than a Real Viking like Leif Erikson.

That is why Cenk Uygur says that the Republicans are already defeated and that they are beginning to raise the White Flag of Surrender.

And even the Wall Street Journal loves Sonia Sotomayor because she likes Business and Capitalism, and Money has no skin color.

Look at tons of Information on Sonia here :

Vicente Duque

Vicente Duque said...

Racist Radio Talk Show of G. Gordon Liddy On Sotomayor: ‘Let’s Hope That The Key Conferences Aren’t When She’s Menstruating’

On May 28, 2009 on his radio show, conservative host G. Gordon Liddy continued his right wing’s all-out assault on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. First, Liddy slammed Sotomayor’s affiliation with the civil rights group La Raza — and referred to the Spanish language as “illegal alien“:

LIDDY: I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race.” And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments.

Finished with the race-based attack, Liddy moved on to denigrate Sotomayor’s gender:

LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Finally, Liddy disputed the entire idea that there’s anything wrong with the paucity of women and total lack of Hispanics on the Court:

LIDDY: And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote. And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body.

G. Gordon Liddy On Sotomayor: 'Let's Hope That The Key Conferences Aren't When She's Menstruating'

Listen to the Audio of the Radio Talk Show here :

Vicente Duque

The Arizonian said... 1868:
111th Congress
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Ironically, this would put the US an par with the rest of the world....

Vicente Duque said...

Watch the New Revamped Show of the Three Stooges at Fox News - Triple A schedule in the Evening - Enhanced Brutality

I have been always a lover of the three stooges Larry, Moe, and Curly, and as a child I almost wept when I knew that they were very old and were going to retire because they were almost dying of old age.

But enter Fox News and the New Show of the New Revamped Three Stooges, the NPT Stooges, they are Newt, Pat and Tom. The New replacement for the slapstick comedy.

These idiots are as funny and violent as the Original Three stooges Larry, Moe and Curly.

As the original stooges, Newt, Pat and Tom are extremely sadistic and cruel, but the blows with hands, fists and objects have been replaced with blows and aggressions against other special people.

The sadism, cruelty and bastardy has even been increased and enhanced.

The show operates like this : The three idiots are presented as Great Intellectuals and Men of Great Wisdom and Great Authors, but they are always repeating the same Hate Line or Fear Lines, and it is completely predictable what they are going to say.

It is like the Original Three Stooges, where you could easily predict the blows and throwing of objects and the physical cruelty of the slapstick comedy.

Vicente Duque

Dee said...

Although it is a bit off topic, I did read through the legislation of the new bill. It doesn't stand a chance. All repub sponsors. The committee has a majority Dems including Reps Gutierrez, Sanchez, Gonzales, etc.
It is silly for Repubs to bring this up now given all the other issues they are having.

My opposition to the bill is due to the number of children born here who will have no country.

Vicente Duque said...

About Tancredo :

I can forgive the guys that work at Fox News for their Imbecility.

But Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanam and Tom Tancredo should feel some respect for the positions in the Legislative or the Executive Branch that they have occupied.

These guys have no self respect and no respect for those dignities. They have been overcome by their own Hatred and Racism. They are defeated and they are losers, failures in life, useless old furniture.

I seriously doubt that the NPT trio returns to high positions.

Minorities should look at what these New Three Stooges preach and vote for the opposite Party.

Vicente Duque

The Arizonian said...

Actually, there was at least one Dem co-sponsor: Rep. Gene Taylor [D-MS4].

As far as "people born without a country", we would simply do what the rest of the world does and appoint the newly born to their parent's country of origin. I know that it may be hard to think of all those people becoming Canadians overnight.

Dee said...

I saw his lone name on the list of supporters and also saw he was from Mississippi. hmmmm.

Anyway, we have had this discussion on the transition of Jus Soli to Jus Sanguinis and in countries that have made this transition, the biggest issue is the children born in countries that have made the transition. In many cases, countless children are without a country. Neither the birth country nor the parents' birth country accept the children as citizens.

Vicente Duque said...

Republicans smearing Sonia Sotomayor :

Republicans digging a hole in which they are going to be trapped for years.

The vileness with which the radical right wing has attacked Supreme Court Judge nominee Sonia Sotomayor may cost the Republican party in votes for many years to come.

I think that Latinos and other Minorities should be informed on the baseness, vulgarity and aggressivity of all these guys and what they have said against Sonia Sotomayor.

That is our task as bloggers, even if we are small or tiny or little ants, we should push against Racist Scoundrels.

Many Whites also dislike the vulgarity, grossness, tastelessness of all these people that accuse Judge Sotomayor of being a Racist, when in fact many of them are long life Racists.

These people are like the proverbial donkey that laughed at the big ears of other quadrupeds.

Many attacks and answers against vulgarity here :

Vicente Duque

Vicente Duque said...

Tom Tancredo Staffer Pleads Guilty to Karate-Chopping Black Woman and she was insulted with the N Word.

These guys have no respect for Minorities !! ....... And they are so Hypocrite !

Washington Independent
Tom Tancredo Staffer Pleads Guilty to Karate-Chopping Black Woman
By David Weigel

June 1, 2009

Some Excerpts :

For years, conservative writer and activist Marcus Epstein has worked with the mainstream of the immigration restrictionist movement. He wrote speeches for former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) during his presidential bid, and he’s still working as the executive director of Tancredo’s Team America PAC, alongside Bay Buchanan. Epstein has been targeted for years by civil rights groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the One People’s Project, who have obtained Epstein’s guilty plea to a hate crime he committed two years ago.

From the U.S. Attorney’s factual proffer:

On July 7, 2007, at approximately 7:15 p.m. at Jefferson and M Street, Northwest, in Washington, D.C., defendant was walking down the street making offensive remarks when he encountered the complainant, Ms. [REDACTED], who is African-American. The defendant uttered, “Nigger,” as he delivered a karate chop to Ms. [REDACTED]’s head.

Epstein has pled guilty and will be sentenced on July 8, although he changed his plea to water down an admission of guilt into the belief that “the government could prove me guilty.” A spokesman for Team America PAC confirmed that Epstein is still at work until he leaves for law school in the fall, and an official statement is forthcoming.

Tancredo has taken a large public role in criticizing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, telling MSNBC that the judge “appears to be a racist.”

Vicente Duque

Page Hits