Tough issue but we’ll figure it out.

I agree with you. After reading your post and re-reading my last post, I think I went too far in implying that only the Right has gone too far with hyperbole. Nothing made this more clear than your reference to Al Sharpton and Wright, let alone the tone of the Democratic primary in W.V.

I stand corrected. Please accept my apology if I have offended you.

The point I was trying to make is that I believe the Right’s historical opposition to civil rights, coupled with its tepid denunciation of its small, but racist fringe has justifiably earned it a reputation for being, at best, indifferent to discrimination against minorities. I guess I overlooked the Dem’s own failings b/c of its (or more accurately the Left’s) historical support for civil rights.

I do not want the GOP to be on the defensive about affirmative action. I, myself, am not sure it’s the right thing today. But, I do want the GOP to not act as if there was no need for a remedy and, more importantly, to propose it’s own ideas about upward mobility.

Those ideas do not need to be race-based. Jack Kemp proved that. The ideas should, however, be effective in practice and go beyond a theory such as supply-side.

In any event, I appreciate the exchange.

I dont in any way believe that La Raza intends to oppress whites. They advocate for people who they consider their own. The name is pretty clear. The whole Sotomayer discussion is about the slippery slope of ethnic solidarity.

Is it only the Right who has to put hyperbole aside to be taken seriously in this discussion? Hasnt the Left been equally hurt by having Al Sharpton, and the scores of local Sharptons in US cities, speaking for it? You must concede that the GOP has come some distance in recent decades on race. How much as the Left changed or evolved in that time?

On affirmative action, reasonable people can disagree. Depending on how you ask the question, a majority of Americans oppose it. There is no reason the GOP should be on the defensive on that.

If the Right wants to discuss this issue without be presumed to be racist…

This is plain wrong. Its 2009 for goodness sakes. The Left has its racists as does the Right. Both sides have legitimate issues. Again, the only thing I want to come of the Sotomayer hearings is the revelation that the Left has its thorny racial issues. We saw it with the Presidents 20-year spiritual mentor. We see it with Sotomayer. You can see it in La Raza and MEChA, the Mexican separatist group that counts as former members many prominent Hispanic Democrats.

All of your points have merit, except for the insistence that the Right, alone, has something more to prove before it is allowed at the table of racial dialogue. There is too much evidence to the contrary for that outdated notion to stand up.

Well, again, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, I think you and others who cite the name “La Raza” as evidence of racial animus are completely wrong.

La Raza is an organization that’s focused on improving opportunities for Hispanics. It is similar to the NAACP and, but for the long history of racism and discrimination in this country, it probably would not exist. It is not, however, an organization that is intended to oppress whites or reduce opportunities for whites in this country.

Yesterday, Tancredo likened La Raza to the KKK. There are absolutely no meaningful similarities between those two organizations. This is the perfect example of what I mean by inflammatory language on the Right.

If the Right wishes to be taken seriously and to have the presumption of good will, it will have to put hyperbole aside – especially in light of its past indifference and, in some cases, promotion of racial discrimination in this country.

As for affirmative action, it is indeed an imperfect remedy and it should be re-evaluated at the very least. I don’t know if it’s appropriate for today or not. But, you can’t deny an entire race basic opportunities and not provide a remedy. Is remedy unfair to whites who did not participate in the discrimination? In some ways it absolutely is. But, many whites, through no fault of their own, benefited (and in some cases still benefit) from the historical denial of basic opportunities to blacks.

If the Right wants to discuss this issue without be presumed to be racist, it would help if it started by acknowleging these basic facts. That doesn’t mean it has to agree with the policies of the Left, but it should be prepared to offer what it considers to be better policies. So far, I haven’t seen anything like this from the Right.

On the ability to talk about race: I cant think of a time when a white Republican was permitted to speak openly about race relations without suffering for it. Thats really one of the few things Id like to see come out of this nomination battleI dont think shes bad enough to not confirm, but the GOP should use its questions to finally gain itself a seat at the table of racial dialogue.

Obamas speech on race made plenty of good points. Unfortunately, because of the timing, it was impossible to shake the impression that it was motivated by political survival. He had just be caught in a 20-year association with a racist lunatic and needed to shift the focus from his racial missteps and onto Americas. (Not that I dont think he had a similar speech planned all along, just that the purpose of that address was self-preservation.) And his typical white person referenceugh.

You mention the GOP and concern for racial discrimination.I would hope anyone can understand that discrimination against minorities is more of a problem because, obviously they are fewer in number. While I hate racial preferences and quotas and most things that fall under the affirmative action umbrella, I dont champion the cause of reverse discrimination. We do have state-sanctioned discrimination against white males in the form of affirmative action, but I think the bigger picture is simply how we see each other. What happens when whites are the minority? We havent given much thought to what happens when the dynamics shift and the U.S. really is a collection of ethnicities and races. I see danger in the group thinking.

I believe strongly that inflammatory language is found equally among Democrats and Republicans. The media didnt really wade into the crowd in those immigration marches. But if they did, especially the first one when groups marched under foreign flags, theyd find it wasnt pretty. When the leading group of march organizers is called The National Council of the Race (La Raza) I really dont think the GOP has much for which to apologize. The animosity is spread equally.

All I want is the GOP to use the Rev. Wright and Sonomayer cases to make that point, or to get the media and the left to at least start thinking about it. I dont think the confirmation hearings need to get ugly to make that point. I certainly hope not.

There is some hypocrisy on the left b/c we often say “no one in this country is willing to talk about race,” but we are often too quick to make people feel uncomfortable to say the things that are on their minds. We can’t invite a discussion about race if we’re going to shut if off the moment we hear something substantive that we don’t like. That is one of the reasons I liked Obama’s race speech. It at least acknowledged the tensions that are justifiably present on both sides.

I’m not suggesting the GOP take the high road and not raise legitimate racial issues that cut against minorities. I don’t think that’s good for either party. What I really want is for the GOP to demonstrate it is just as concerned about about racial discrimination against women and minorities as it is about discrimination against white males, which frankly, hasn’t been as much of a problem in this country.

I would also expect the base of the GOP to learn to discuss these issues without the inflammatory and offensive language that was present too often during the immigration debate and the McCain/Palin rallies. I don’t attribute the actions of the fringe to the whole party, but I think the party should be much more aggressive in publicly condemning that racist fringe. This is exactly what Dems had to learn todo with respect to people of faith.

Im always careful about context so I had already read most of the speech. Lets look at this from two angles:

Practical: The rest of her remarks did temper the one line. However nothing in it explains how she came to feel comfortable declaring that a Latina woman would more often reach better conclusions than a white man. After all, if all of our experiences have equal value, it should be a washshes better at a few, a white judge is better than her at a few. But she didnt say that. I believe this is as much about gender politics as race/ethnicity. The argument Elect a woman, she brings a different sensibility to the office is not new. It suggests a womans experience would make her better for certain issues (social policy, maybe). What is unspoken is that such a bias must also make her weaker on others (defense). That last line is not a crowd pleaser. So, like the Sonomayer, most feminists dont address it. Its one of the hazards of identity politics.

Political: Newt and AP are absolutely right, a white nominee, regardless of gender, would not be allowed to provide the context necessary to explain the statement. Period. Youre suggesting the GOP take the high road, where the Dems and mainstream media would clearly not. Im OK with that. But she should be made to squirm. We need to demonstrate that ambitious liberals cant say potentially incendiary things to sympathetic crowds in manner that can be used to fuel divisions. (See Wright, Rev.)

You are right to note that, in the end, her actual decisions have to be looked at to see if any of this mattered. Off the top of my head, the New Haven decision, and the short, dismissive opinion, might be one. It certainly would have been good enough for Democrats and media to declare GUILTY under reverse circumstances. But we can take the high road. Im more interested in 1. Bringing opinions like Sotomayers out in the open to discuss, and 2. leveling the political playing field, so that the issue of racial sensitivity is no longer a GOP-only concern. We need to know how common the Sotomayers and Wrights are in the Democratic Party, and we need to force the Dems to tread just as lightly on the topic as we have to.

Hope that makes sense.

Alex, have you lost your mind? This is political quicksand. You’ve been outplayed masterfully, and any attempt to find a silver lining in this tactical loss will just get you deeper into deep doodoo.

The type of thing that could derail this nomination is, say, a youtube video of her juggling kittens over a barbecue pit. Maybe.

What in the world do you gain by further alienating women and hispanics? And everyone left of Ann Coulter, who will see this as poor sportsmanship and mindless bashing?

Did the left do this to your boys? Yes. Get over it. It’s not in the cards right now for you to get payback. It’s completely and totally self-destructive.

“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.”

Most important of all, her speech was given in 2001. So we have 8 years of rulings by her to evaluate and determine if she has, in fact, been unfair or impartial has failed to follow the rule of law in any way.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has identified a single case that would demonstrate she has done any of those things.

I agree that her statement, on its face and separated from the rest of the speech, goes well beyond what Alito was saying. I even agree that the statement within the context of the entire speech is quite controversial, and she should be questioned on it extensively.

But, when I read her entire speech I’m not as bothered by the statement. I think the statement is part of a larger point she is making, and I agree with her larger point. I think most people, intuitively would agree, although it’s still a point that is rarely discussed.

I’d like to hear your thoughts after you read the last page of her speech, which is where this statement comes up.

Here’s the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1