Rachel Maddow Takes On Pat Buchanan (VIDEO): "You're Playing With Fire... You're Living In The 1950s

Forums: Television, U S Politics, Rachel Maddow, Conservative Dinosaurs, Modern American Conservative
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Huffington Post Reporting
by Jason Linkins
Rachel Maddow Takes On Pat Buchanan (VIDEO): "You're Playing With Fire... You're Living In The 1950s"
07-17-09

If by some chance you haven't heard yet, last night on the Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC pundit Pat Buchanan, who's been urging the GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to oppose the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor by blissing out to their inner sense of racial superiority, had something of an epic battle with Rachel Maddow over the History of Race in America. Maddow concluded that Buchanan was "dating himself," and basically made Buchanan look like a fool, but first and foremost, let's remember that this tilt was probably great for ratings, and Buchanan will likely be back on MSNBC tomorrow, spitting whatever nonsense comes dribbling out of his face, right after Steve Capus finishes popping champagne over this most recent, awesomely successful advancement of the political discourse.

Anyway, my favorite part of this wondrous dialogue came after Maddow asked Buchanan why he thought that 108 of the 110 Supreme Court Justices had been white. He replied:

"White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks, who were 90% of the nation in 1960 when I was growing up and the other 10% were African-Americans who had been discriminated against. That's why.
"
Damn straight! And what were all those black people doing at the time when heroic white people were setting about the important business of founding this great nation of ours? You guessed it! Hanging around fields, picking cotton, like bone idle jerks! None of that ever contributed anything to the common weal, of course! I mean, what is "cotton?" Not exactly THE FABRIC OF OUR LIVES, right?

Sure, at that time, their presence in the New World was based upon the economic need for a cheap and readily available supply of ambulatory chattel, and yeah, the consensus opinion was that they weren't even really members of the human race, but as Pat Buchanan has, in the past, endeavored to explain to black America, being dragged to this continent in leg irons was the best and most generous thing that anyone has ever done for them! Surely, out of pure gratitude they could have ponied up a decent amendment to the Constitution or inscribed three-fifths of their signature on the Declaration of Independence.

Did you know that only twenty-percent of the people killed in 1770's Boston Massacre were black? It's true! One guy, named Crispus Attucks, who was obviously an affirmative action slaying!

How many blacks fought in the Union Army during the Civil War? A paltry 163 units! And it's not like any of them had to risk life and limb, fleeing bondage to join up and fight to preserve the Union? No, no! Black people had it totally easy! And don't get me started on their teensy contributions in defense of the civilized world in World War Two. The Tuskegee Whats Exactly? Why, blacks comprised a mere pair of infantry divisions and a single cavalry division and a single air corps division and only thirty-two field artillery battalions and eleven tank destroyer battalions! Why didn't more black people show up to fight for America? Why, you'd almost have to imagine that the armed forces weren't even integrated until 1948 or something!

So yes. before we rush off and do something foolish like appoint Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, which would give Caucasians the biggest sad of their misbegotten lives, let's try to remember that it was white people that built this city, on rock and roll (which they stole from black people!).

And, look, sure, there was that one time that a bunch of white people decided to sell a crap-ton of bad mortgages, chop them up into junk-ass derivative marm, and sell it to one another while leveraging it all out the ying-yang and getting it bona-fide ratings from Moody's and backing it all on a daisy-chain of gossamer horseshit from AIG, only to have the whole arrangement implode in a furious supernova of massive systemic risk that nearly destroyed the entire global economy, but believe me, ALL THOSE HONKY-CRACKERS WERE JUST HAVING AN OFF DAY, NO WORRIES! And hey, the good news is that all those white people learned from their experience, and came up with an awesome plan to get American taxpayers to put everything right, and make them all unbelievably wealthy again.

You know, there's always someone who'll point out that it's not fair that there's a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, when a National Association for the Advancement of White People would be decried as racist. But you know what? There is a National Association for the Advancement of White People! We just pronounce it, "Troubled Asset Relief Program."

But seriously, if MSNBC wasn't here to provide America with the always incisive historical perspective of Pat Buchanan, we might all have to go out and grow brains, or something.

Video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/17/rachel-maddow-takes-on-pa_n_237146.html

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 2,434 • Replies: 28

No top replies

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

as much as I don't dig Huffington, gotta say "awesome eh"

0 Replies

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

re. bbb posting huffington ...
oh , oh , oh , isn't that somewhat risky ?
wondering if ANYONE will respond or if the C........... will swallow it like a dose of cod-liver oil or a purgative ? Razz

hbg

0 Replies

It's pretty obvious to any who have paid any attention, Pat Buchanan is an anachronist relic from the boneyard of political/social thought, but this piece of jingoistic fluff is embarrassing.

0 Replies

I don't think it proves any point when you talk about SC justices dating back to the beginning of the United States....I'm more curious to find out the results since the civil rights movement.

0 Replies

Calling a debate between Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan an "epic battle," is like calling Obama's first pitch at the All-star Game "high cheese." We're not talking about Achilles and Hector here.

Why do hacks like Linkens feel there is any value in their providing written responses to the verbal comments someone made in a debate to someone else; the night before?

I assume he doesn't think Maddow made a big enough fool of Buchanan or that her civil exchange was somehow inadequate, but his piece would be more accurately titled

"Linkens Takes On Pat Buchanan...after the fact and from the safety of his cubicle."

Maybe I'm missing Linkens irony (these days a left wing ranter can utter just about any idiotic thing and then assume the cover of irony when called on it), but isn't his assertion that the 2008 economic meltdown was the responsibility of a bunch of white people ridiculous?

First of all, I bet if he did as much research as he spent in showing that blacks played significant roles in both the Revolutionary and Civil wars, he would find a similar level of representation of non-whites among those responsible for the meltdown. I can think of one right off the top of my head - Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae.

But let's assume that Raines has been falsely accused, and that there really were no black or Hispanic men and women that can be considered in any way culpable for our economic woes, what is that supposed to suggest?

There are no blacks or Hispanics operating at the peak of the US financial pyramid? Obviously that's wrong.

That there are no greedy or incompetent blacks or Hispanics at the peak of the US financial pyramid? Really?

Secondly, it isn't difficult to make a fool out of Buchanan (he does it himself all of the time), but how is asserting that the economic meltdown was a largely white debacle a rational response to Buchanan's comments?

Buchanan: "White people made this country great."
Linkens: "White people tanked the economy."

And let's assume (as some of you no doubt have already done) that I am oblivious to Linkens' irony. Does a screed offering nothing but snarky sarcasm amount to anything of intellectual interest or value?

Not all of Buchanan's points were foolish. The ones that weren't were ignored by Maddow, and the ones that were, were ably responded to by her.

Despite the fact that Buchanan can make sense at times he often reveals the true meanness of spirit for which is often criticized. In this case the revelation came by way of his inability to acknowledge that because non-whites have not been fairly represented in positions of power and importance in this country for a very long time is not indicative of the superiority of whites.

It doesn't mean that the whites that have held these positions were unqualified to do so or even that there were better qualified non-white individuals. It would have been extremely difficult for non-whites to have achieved a level of competitive qualification for most of our history, but again this doesn't imply that the whites who did were superior in any way other than privilege.

The valid point that Buchanan does make, however, but which is lost in his bombast is that because non-whites or women have had artificial barriers placed in the way of their achievement because of their race or gender doesn't mean that we should now consider their race or gender as a valid qualification.

It's pretty clear that Sotomoyer was selected as Obama's nominee not because she is unquestionably recognized as the finest legal mind in our country. She also wasn't selected because she is the finest legal mind in the country that is likely to rule in the way Obama believes a justice should.

She may be unquestionably recognized as the finest legal mind among women in the country, but I doubt it, and I suspect there are equally qualified Hispanic legal minds that happen to be male.

She was selected because she has a fine legal mind, is also a Hispanic woman and is likely to vote on cases in the way Obama believes a justice should.

If she were intellectually mundane or ignorant of the law, and was selected only because she is a liberal Latina, I would be agreeing with Buchanan. Clearly though, she is not.

I do think she has proven herself to be a phony who will say anything she has to, to be confirmed and I'm not pleased that her legal philosophy will be represented on the SC, but I've no problem what-so-ever with her gender or ethnicity.

It's not like fifteen white male judges passed a test that she failed.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

It's pretty clear that Sotomoyer was selected as Obama's nominee not because she is unquestionably recognized as the finest legal mind in our country. She also wasn't selected because she is the finest legal mind in the country that is likely to rule in the way Obama believes a justice should.

This isn't clear at all.

Sotomayor has a long, successful career which has included top academic honors, an impressive legal career, and a lengthy distinguished career on the bench.

Gender and race aside, there are not a large number of people with her intelligence, level of success, or credentials.

She is clearly more impressive than John Roberts... why doesn't anyone make thinly veiled insinuations about the reason he was nominated?

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

Finn's next sentence, I belive, is without question, and helps to clarify the piece you quoted.

Quote:

She was selected because she has a fine legal mind, is also a Hispanic woman and is likely to vote on cases in the way Obama believes a justice should.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
It's pretty clear that Sotomoyer was selected as Obama's nominee not because she is unquestionably recognized as the finest legal mind in our country. She also wasn't selected because she is the finest legal mind in the country that is likely to rule in the way Obama believes a justice should.

This isn't clear at all.

Sotomayor has a long, successful career which has included top academic honors, an impressive legal career, and a lengthy distinguished career on the bench.

Gender and race aside, there are not a large number of people with her intelligence, level of success, or credentials.

She is clearly more impressive than John Roberts... why doesn't anyone make thinly veiled insinuations about the reason he was nominated?

So you think she is the finest legal mind in the country and just happens to be a liberal latina?

Give us a break.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Sotomayor is the most qualified Supreme Court justice in 70 years, graduated Summa Cum Laude from the best University in the country, and was on the Yale Law Review. Add to that 17 years as an appellate judge, which gives her more judicial experience upon her nomination than the other judges had.

Finn dAbuzz is a right wing forum troll with an inflated sense of his own importance who is a sore 2008 election loser.

I know who I prefer on the Supreme Court

1 Reply

@contrex,

Let me guess, your a fan of Linkens too.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Responding to ebrown, Finn dAbuzz wrote:

So you think she is the finest legal mind in the country and just happens to be a liberal latina?

Give us a break.

Sotomayor has the finest legal mind in the country? NOT POSSIBLE, according to Buchanan. Conservative right-wing spokesperson PAT BUCHANAN has spelled it all out for America in his written columns and television appearances as follows:

WHITE MEN have the finest legal minds in this country, so we cannot presume discrimination of others by the mere fact that white men have occupied 99.5 percent of all slots on the Supreme Court.

BLACK MEN are the best athletes (e.g., fastest runners) with the exception of the hockey players (i.e., white men are the best hockey players), so we cannot presume discrimination of others by the mere fact that that black men occupy most of the slots on the Olympic track team.

HISPANIC MEN are rapers, robbers, and murderers who occupy most of the cells in our prisons and who are destroying this country through their prolific breeding! When WHITE MEN founded this country, they did it for themselves and for their WHITE descendents, for crying out loud!!!!!

MY GOD, man! Haven't you been listening to Buchanan??????

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

So you think she is the finest legal mind in the country and just happens to be a liberal latina?

Give us a break.

This is the problem Finn. Republicans accuse liberals of being race obsessed, yet waste no opportunity to reduce a very well educated and experienced individual to their gender and race... unless they are white and male.

What reasoning could forbid the finest legal mind in the country from being a liberal latina, be it Sotomayer or someone else?

She is obviously well qualified for this position.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

You seem to be a bit excited.

Too many Redbulls, or is that what Pat Buchanan does for you?

While there is no reason to believe that the finest legal mind in the country does not belong to a latina, to layer on a post-modernist judical philosophy pretty well rules out Sonia Sotomoyer for that honor.

Now, if you or ebrown or Diest wish to contend that Sotomoyer is the finest legal mind in the country, be my guest. I doubt many but your fellow partisans will agree, but everyone is entitled to an opinion.

However, if you wish to assert that the fact that Sotomoyer is a liberal latina is merely coincidental to her selection by President Obama you have a much tougher case to make.

As soon as Souter announced he was to retire, it was a foregone conclusion that Obama would nominate a woman to replace him and one which the White House confirmed in short order.

Again, that's fine. There are plenty of first class female legal minds in this country and while, ideally, I would prefer these selections to be made without consideration of race, ethnicity or gender, I appreciate that this will not always be the case.

But regardless of what you think of Sotomoyor's intellect and knowledge, only a fool would suggest that her ethnicity and gender played no role in her selection.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
So you think she is the finest legal mind in the country and just happens to be a liberal latina?

Give us a break.

This is the problem Finn. Republicans accuse liberals of being race obsessed, yet waste no opportunity to reduce a very well educated and experienced individual to their gender and race... unless they are white and male.

What reasoning could forbid the finest legal mind in the country from being a liberal latina, be it Sotomayer or someone else?

She is obviously well qualified for this position.

T
K
O

Here is the problem Diest: You have a double standard.

Sotomoyer was selected because she is a woman and Hispanic, but you want to criticize anyone who points that out.

The Obama Administration reduced her to her gender and ethnicity, not the GOP and certainly not me.

I've never suggested that either her ethnicity or her gender disqualifies her for the position, but you are either naive or disingenuous if you contend that those characteristics were not major considerations for her selection.

All this nonsense about the historic nature of her selection is just that. She will be the first latina to sit on the SC, but it would be just as historic an event if a blind person was selected because he or she was blind.

I really couldn't care less what her gender and ethnicity may be in terms of my evaluation of her as a nominee, and you know what? Neither does my Puerto Rican wife and mother-in-law.

Neither of them have, for years, been lamenting the fact that someone with a Hispanic background is not serving on the SC, and neither of them are going to allow their common ethnicity with Sotomoyer to trump their distrust of her judicial philosophy.

There is something deeply cynical in the thinking that Hispanics are so homogeneous that they will all support any Hispanic nominee or, more importantly, the Administration that nominates them.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
So you think she is the finest legal mind in the country and just happens to be a liberal latina?

Give us a break.

This is the problem Finn. Republicans accuse liberals of being race obsessed, yet waste no opportunity to reduce a very well educated and experienced individual to their gender and race... unless they are white and male.

What reasoning could forbid the finest legal mind in the country from being a liberal latina, be it Sotomayer or someone else?

She is obviously well qualified for this position.

T
K
O

Here is the problem Diest: You have a double standard.

Sotomoyer was selected because she is a woman and Hispanic, but you want to criticize anyone who points that out.

The Obama Administration reduced her to her gender and ethnicity, not the GOP and certainly not me.

I've never suggested that either her ethnicity or her gender disqualifies her for the position, but you are either naive or disingenuous if you contend that those characteristics were not major considerations for her selection.

All this nonsense about the historic nature of her selection is just that. She will be the first latina to sit on the SC, but it would be just as historic an event if a blind person was selected because he or she was blind.

I really couldn't care less what her gender and ethnicity may be in terms of my evaluation of her as a nominee, and you know what? Neither does my Puerto Rican wife and mother-in-law.

Neither of them have, for years, been lamenting the fact that someone with a Hispanic background is not serving on the SC, and neither of them are going to allow their common ethnicity with Sotomoyer to trump their distrust of her judicial philosophy.

There is something deeply cynical in the thinking that Hispanics are so homogeneous that they will all support any Hispanic nominee or, more importantly, the Administration that nominates them.

Your summary is grossly inaccurate. She was nominated because she is a long experienced judge and lawyer.

The double standard is yours.
K
O

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Here is the problem Diest: You have a double standard.

No such problem exists.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Sotomoyer was selected because she is a woman and Hispanic, but you want to criticize anyone who points that out.

She is a well qualified judge and lawyer that was selected whose experiance is well fitting for such an appointment. I'll criticize her reduction to simply a Latina.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The Obama Administration reduced her to her gender and ethnicity, not the GOP and certainly not me.

Factually false assertion. The Obama administration did nothing of the sort.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I've never suggested that either her ethnicity or her gender disqualifies her for the position, but you are either naive or disingenuous if you contend that those characteristics were not major considerations for her selection.

This is where YOU are applying a double standard Finn. I won't say that it has nothing to do with her selection, but the point is moot: Our history has given a long preference to giving white males this kind of appointment. Does race and gender only become of part of the dialog when minorities are up for the bench? When Roberts was selected, how much of his white-male-ness was discussed or criticized?

Imagine if I had said to "give me a break" at the notion that the greatest legal mind the USA is a white male?

You sound ridiculous.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

All this nonsense about the historic nature of her selection is just that. She will be the first latina to sit on the SC, but it would be just as historic an event if a blind person was selected because he or she was blind.

Yes. correct. However, I am willing to bet that if we were discussing a blind candidate who just happened to have liberal leanings, you'd be telling us about how they only got selected because they were blind. Rolling Eyes

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I really couldn't care less what her gender and ethnicity may be in terms of my evaluation of her as a nominee, and you know what? Neither does my Puerto Rican wife and mother-in-law.

I hope you don't think this makes you in any way more qualified or knowledgeable on this topic.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Neither of them have, for years, been lamenting the fact that someone with a Hispanic background is not serving on the SC, and neither of them are going to allow their common ethnicity with Sotomoyer to trump their distrust of her judicial philosophy.

Are you attempting to offer some sort of vantage point beyond our view Finn?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

There is something deeply cynical in the thinking that Hispanics are so homogeneous that they will all support any Hispanic nominee or, more importantly, the Administration that nominates them.

Red Herring. How is this at all relevant? Are you suggesting that Obama is trying to secure a Hispanic vote by putting her on the bench? Don't lecture about cynicism, Finn.

The bottom line is that she's a well educated legal mind with lots of experience. I understand that you don't like her politics, but there is not judge, NONE, that will please all of the USA. You make a weak case that she is a poor choice for the job. Your only protest, is that you don't agree with her. Deal with it. Plenty of people don't agree with various members of the USSC.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

No such problem exists.

Sez you.

Quote:

She is a well qualified judge and lawyer that was selected whose experience is well fitting for such an appointment. I'll criticize her reduction to simply a Latina.

Then you are either naive or disingenuous. Personally, I believe the former, but it matters little.

It is perfectly acceptable for politics to enter the choice for a nominee to the Supreme Court. It happens with each and every selection. In this regard, Buchanan was being disingenuous. But you, young Jedhi, I think you may actually believe that Sotormoyer was selected for her legal qualifications alone. Youth is indeed wasted on the young.

Quote:

Factually false assertion. The Obama administration did nothing of the sort.

Nonsense. Take off your blinders.

If the Obama Administration selected her primarily for her gender and ethnicity (which it did), then it clearly reduced her to a Latina long before any of her critics weighed in. But of course you won't believe that your hero is capable of such politically motivated decisions. He's a transcendent American figure, base politics are beneath him.

Quote:

This is where YOU are applying a double standard Finn. I won't say that it has nothing to do with her selection, but the point is moot: Our history has given a long preference to giving white males this kind of appointment. Does race and gender only become of part of the dialog when minorities are up for the bench? When Roberts was selected, how much of his white-male-ness was discussed or criticized?

Imagine if I had said to "give me a break" at the notion that the greatest legal mind the USA is a white male?

You sound ridiculous.

Your passion is admirable but it fogs your intellect.

The point that is her gender and ethnicity is essentially inconsequential as respects her qualifications, but it is hardly moot as respects this discussion.

Unfortunately you are following all to closely in the footsteps of your progressive role models, looking for any even remote sign that the opposition can be considered racist and then leaping to the charge no matter how wide the gap between reality and your tactical intent.

When Alito was nominated, Bush was, in fact, criticized for replacing a female justice with a male one. He might have been nominating a Hispanic male if the Democrats had not filibustered Alberto Gonzalez' nomination for a seat on the federal appeals court.

As is all too typical, I'm afraid, you've mischaracterized my comment "Give me a break." to suit your formulaic argument.

The incredulity I expressed was not that a latina might be the nation's finest legal mind, but the suggestion that her gender and ethnicity was immaterial to her nomination.

Again, you and others may consider her the finest legal mind in the country, but, if you do, it is because you want to, not because you know it to be so.

She is someone of sufficient intellect and knowledge to be considered for an appointment to the Supreme Court, but I think you will be hard pressed to find a someone with an opinion that might be considered authoritative, who considers her at the top of the "A List."

Again, this is where Buchanan revealed himself. First of all, the notion of anyone being considered the foremost legal mind in the country is a non-starter. Secondly, it's ridiculous to assert that any of the prior justices, whether white male or not were the reigning legal brainiac of their time.

God knows if there is someone who is universally regarded as the greatest legal mind in our country, but the chances of him or her being nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court are probably nil.

Obama did was not so lucky as to pick the greatest legal mind in the country who also happened to be female and Hispanic. If you truly believe this is the case than, I'm sorry, you are a simpleton.

The irony (and I know how you Progressives love irony) of this whole affair is that because she is Hispanic she is going to receive more Republican votes for confirmation than she would if she were not. Do you really think that a man who is now our president, and the advisors who made it possible, were not counting on this dynamic?

Quote:

Yes. correct. However, I am willing to bet that if we were discussing a blind candidate who just happened to have liberal leanings, you'd be telling us about how they only got selected because they were blind.

Then you would lose your shirt.

Sotomoyer was not selected simply because she is a latina or even a liberal latina. If that was Obama's sole criterion for nomination than we might just as easily have been watching Rosie Perez or Jennifer Lopez before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Obviously he had to pick someone with the credentials to be taken seriously.

It certainly is a tribute to the female jurists in this nation that he had a choice.

Clearly, Sotomoyer was not chosen simply because she is a female Hispanic, but if she had been a male Hispanic she would not have been selected. Is this really so hard for you to accept?

Quote:

I hope you don't think this makes you in any way more qualified or knowledgeable on this topic.

Not really, and certainly not any more than you feel uniquely qualified to represent Asian opinions.

It does, however, give me a perspective not enjoyed by people who have no personal ties to any segment of the Hispanic community.

Besides, I thought this is what Sonia and all y'all are all about. I, having married a Puerto Rican and siring her partially Puerto Rican children, have a unique perspective that those who have not cannot hope to understand. You have a unique perspective on the partially Japanese mind. Far be it for me to tell you that I know the Nipponese mode of thought better than you, and unless you are Irish, Norwegian, Swedish, English or German, I don't expect to hear any lip from you about how such folk feel.

Quote:

Are you attempting to offer some sort of vantage point beyond our view Finn?

Well, yes.

Isn't this a foundational argument of your progressive ideology?

I have intimate knowledge of a family of Hispanics. You do not. Therefore, my opinion as respects the desires of Hispanics must supercede any notion you might have. Isn't this the way post-modernist thought works?

Quote:

Red Herring. How is this at all relevant? Are you suggesting that Obama is trying to secure a Hispanic vote by putting her on the bench? Don't lecture about cynicism, Finn.

Yes I am! How brilliant of you to recognize my argument.

It is foolhardy to lecture an innocent such as yourself on cynicism. I doubt you understand the concept.

Quote:

The bottom line is that she's a well educated legal mind with lots of experience. I understand that you don't like her politics, but there is not judge, NONE, that will please all of the USA. You make a weak case that she is a poor choice for the job. Your only protest, is that you don't agree with her. Deal with it. Plenty of people don't agree with various members of the USSC.

Well, I'm glad you understand I don't agree with her politics.

My only protest is that I don't agree with her?

I thought it was that she is a woman and Hispanic?

Yo Diest, not agreeing with someone is a pretty good reason for not wanting them to have a say in what constitutes the Law of The Land.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
No such problem exists.

Sez you.

"Sez" your failure to illustrate one.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
She is a well qualified judge and lawyer that was selected whose experience is well fitting for such an appointment. I'll criticize her reduction to simply a Latina.

Then you are either naive or disingenuous. Personally, I believe the former, but it matters little.

Don't quit your day job for a lucrative career in mind reading, Finn.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It is perfectly acceptable for politics to enter the choice for a nominee to the Supreme Court. It happens with each and every selection. In this regard, Buchanan was being disingenuous. But you, young Jedhi, I think you may actually believe that Sotormoyer was selected for her legal qualifications alone. Youth is indeed wasted on the young.

I didn't say "alone" old man. Taylor your arguments to what I say. Put your glasses on gramps.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
Factually false assertion. The Obama administration did nothing of the sort.

Nonsense. Take off your blinders.

If the Obama Administration selected her primarily for her gender and ethnicity (which it did), then it clearly reduced her to a Latina long before any of her critics weighed in. But of course you won't believe that your hero is capable of such politically motivated decisions. He's a transcendent American figure, base politics are beneath him.

You can't prove this assertion, and so it remains of zero value.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
This is where YOU are applying a double standard Finn. I won't say that it has nothing to do with her selection, but the point is moot: Our history has given a long preference to giving white males this kind of appointment. Does race and gender only become of part of the dialog when minorities are up for the bench? When Roberts was selected, how much of his white-male-ness was discussed or criticized?

Imagine if I had said to "give me a break" at the notion that the greatest legal mind the USA is a white male?

You sound ridiculous.

Your passion is admirable but it fogs your intellect.

The point that is her gender and ethnicity is essentially inconsequential as respects her qualifications, but it is hardly moot as respects this discussion.

And yet, if you remove latina from Sotomayer, she is still a great candidate. You're the one being disingenuous here Finn. Compare her experience to any other member of the court at the time of their confirmation hearings. How she isn't qualified based on that comparison?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Unfortunately you are following all to closely in the footsteps of your progressive role models, looking for any even remote sign that the opposition can be considered racist and then leaping to the charge no matter how wide the gap between reality and your tactical intent.

Your movements betray you. I don't think that the GOP is being racist, I think that they are trying to use race as a wedge issue to imply that Sotomeyer was ONLY selected (as you have charged) because of her race and gender and NOT because of her knowledge or experience.

Your rhetoric is getting jumped because nobody is buying it, and you need ot be told that it's pathetic.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

When Alito was nominated, Bush was, in fact, criticized for replacing a female justice with a male one. He might have been nominating a Hispanic male if the Democrats had not filibustered Alberto Gonzalez' nomination for a seat on the federal appeals court.

Speculate all you like, but what's your point? You implying that there is a racial/gender strategy in filling the USSC? If so, then what was Bush's strategy?.. you know... since you're speculating and all.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

As is all too typical, I'm afraid, you've mischaracterized my comment "Give me a break." to suit your formulaic argument.

How is it mis characterized exactly? Your use of the phrase was to directed at the idea that "a latina" (as opposed to specifically saying Sotomeyer) could be the greatest legal mind in the USA. I addressed your comment correctly. I'd let you withdraw your old one though, if you typed in error.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The incredulity I expressed was not that a latina might be the nation's finest legal mind, but the suggestion that her gender and ethnicity was immaterial to her nomination.

Not according to your wording.

If her gender and ethnicity are immaterial, then discuss her in terms of her other merits Finn. You seem incapable.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Again, you and others may consider her the finest legal mind in the country, but, if you do, it is because you want to, not because you know it to be so.

I didn't say I thought she is the greatest, I only responded to your statement that I should give you a "break" at the notion that a Latina (as opposed to simply saying "Sotomeyer") could be the USA's greatest legal mind.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

She is someone of sufficient intellect and knowledge to be considered for an appointment to the Supreme Court, but I think you will be hard pressed to find a someone with an opinion that might be considered authoritative, who considers her at the top of the "A List."

Authority like what? Like the Senate? Hell, even Lindsey Graham gave her a "good luck" after grilling her about her contraversial statement. Like it or not, she is on that A-list. If you plan on questioning that, I wonder what standard you plan to use on her that you'd additionally be willing to be used on the conservative judges on the USSC?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Again, this is where Buchanan revealed himself. First of all, the notion of anyone being considered the foremost legal mind in the country is a non-starter. Secondly, it's ridiculous to assert that any of the prior justices, whether white male or not were the reigning legal brainiac of their time.

Agreed. Sotomeyer, does not have to be the reigning legal brainiac of our time for her to be a valid nominee.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

God knows if there is someone who is universally regarded as the greatest legal mind in our country, but the chances of him or her being nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court are probably nil.

And yet who has said that she is the greatest? Red Herring.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Obama did was not so lucky as to pick the greatest legal mind in the country who also happened to be female and Hispanic. If you truly believe this is the case than, I'm sorry, you are a simpleton.

Obama's nomination of Sotomeyer was just fine. You can crybaby all you like, I'm not sympathetic. You've made a terribly weak argument here. You don't get a consolation prize.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The irony (and I know how you Progressives love irony) of this whole affair is that because she is Hispanic she is going to receive more Republican votes for confirmation than she would if she were not. Do you really think that a man who is now our president, and the advisors who made it possible, were not counting on this dynamic?

Her confirmation doesn't really require the Republican votes, so your theory doesn't make much sense.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
Yes. correct. However, I am willing to bet that if we were discussing a blind candidate who just happened to have liberal leanings, you'd be telling us about how they only got selected because they were blind.

Then you would lose your shirt.

Based on your rhetorical ability so far, I doubt it.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Sotomoyer was not selected simply because she is a latina or even a liberal latina. If that was Obama's sole criterion for nomination than we might just as easily have been watching Rosie Perez or Jennifer Lopez before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Obviously he had to pick someone with the credentials to be taken seriously.

She is being taken seriously. She is not Rosie Perez, nor Jennifer Lopez. The suggestion that either of the two would have been a fit, but only lose out to Sotomeyer because she's actually a judge/lawyer is flirtaciously insane.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It certainly is a tribute to the female jurists in this nation that he had a choice.

Don't do yourself any favors alright?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Clearly, Sotomoyer was not chosen simply because she is a female Hispanic, but if she had been a male Hispanic she would not have been selected. Is this really so hard for you to accept?

What is harder is for you to substantiate your claim. Your claims write checks you can't cash.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
I hope you don't think this makes you in any way more qualified or knowledgeable on this topic.

Not really, and certainly not any more than you feel uniquely qualified to represent Asian opinions.

I can't offer what the "Asian opinion" is, but I can certainly offer my opinion which is a part of my perspective as a part of the Asian community.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It does, however, give me a perspective not enjoyed by people who have no personal ties to any segment of the Hispanic community.

...by proxy.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Besides, I thought this is what Sonia and all y'all are all about. I, having married a Puerto Rican and siring her partially Puerto Rican children, have a unique perspective that those who have not cannot hope to understand. You have a unique perspective on the partially Japanese mind. Far be it for me to tell you that I know the Nipponese mode of thought better than you, and unless you are Irish, Norwegian, Swedish, English or German, I don't expect to hear any lip from you about how such folk feel.

You're right, but your conclusion is limited.

Nobody is ever going to have the perspective of all races, or both genders, etc. We socialize/interact and communicate often in ways that involve some combination of sympathy and empathy. You do not have some inherent empathy due to the nature of your family, but I'd bet your sympathy is well tuned.

Here's my point. Those with a greater ability to use their mind to both sympathize (second hand understand) and empathize (first hand understanding) are going to be able to offer more. Further, empathy is a better source.

Many minorities have grown up in the USA (and over the world) with a mostly european and american influenced media culture. For generations now, non-whites have been given a window into what it is like to be white (and in many cases male and privileged to boot). It is a window that allows people to sympathize and simulate the white male mindset. It is only a recent turn in media culture that see a divergence in that mindset or new windows to peer through.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
Are you attempting to offer some sort of vantage point beyond our view Finn?

Well, yes.

Kind of a direct contradiction to what you said earlier.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Isn't this a foundational argument of your progressive ideology?

Nope.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I have intimate knowledge of a family of Hispanics. You do not. Therefore, my opinion as respects the desires of Hispanics must supercede any notion you might have. Isn't this the way post-modernist thought works?

Nope.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
Red Herring. How is this at all relevant? Are you suggesting that Obama is trying to secure a Hispanic vote by putting her on the bench? Don't lecture about cynicism, Finn.

Yes I am! How brilliant of you to recognize my argument.

It is foolhardy to lecture an innocent such as yourself on cynicism. I doubt you understand the concept.

You're too easy to telegraph, that's all.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
The bottom line is that she's a well educated legal mind with lots of experience. I understand that you don't like her politics, but there is not judge, NONE, that will please all of the USA. You make a weak case that she is a poor choice for the job. Your only protest, is that you don't agree with her. Deal with it. Plenty of people don't agree with various members of the USSC.

Well, I'm glad you understand I don't agree with her politics.

My only protest is that I don't agree with her?

I thought it was that she is a woman and Hispanic?

The problem here is that the GOP is shamed, and they know they have done a piss poor job of taking care of anyone below the american aristocracy. In the case of hispanics (or any other minority for that matter), the GOP can't show how they've done anything to help, and so it's natural to fear that those broken promises will come back to haunt them. The Tent is getting smaller... and smaller...

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Yo Diest, not agreeing with someone is a pretty good reason for not wanting them to have a say in what constitutes the Law of The Land.

And if you could simple stick to this line, it would be a lot more dignified. Compare Sotomeyer's experience now to the members of the current USSC at the time of their confirmation hearings. Show me how she is an invalid nominee.

T
K
Oh, and grow up with the whippersnapper bullshit.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

You may have been in a hurry or something but you've posted a bunch of lame high-school comebacks in lieu of actual arguments with that last post.

1 Reply

Rachel Maddow Takes On Pat Buchanan (VIDEO): "You're Playing With Fire... You're Living In The 1950s

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know