Lars Larson on Surprising News from Sonya Sotomayor

Our latest Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonya Sotomayor, has a little more surprising news for us. It came late last Friday night, which is a great way to bury that news over the weekend. But, here it is.

This woman, who still has some problems as she heads up to her confirmation hearing on July 13, has decided to quit the Belizean Grove. The Belizean Grove is an organization exclusively for women””elite women. She joined it about ten years ago. A lot of Republicans and conservatives say it’s a discriminatory organization.

A woman who has said wise Latinas are smarter than old, white men, and a woman who has held up reverse discrimination in places like New Haven, Connecticut, belonging to a discriminatory organization?

But, she says it’s not guilty of “invidious discrimination”. Oh! So there’s a good kind too. Thanks, Judge Sotomayor.

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 08:57 | Posted in Measure 37 | 30 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Eddie

    This “Belizean Grove” sounds like an obvious parody of the “Bohemian Grove.”

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >But, she says it’s not guilty of “invidious discrimination”. Oh! So there’s a good kind too. Thanks, Judge Sotomayor.

    I think this is why the left has such a problem with issues of race and prejudice. It’s become expected of them to be so utterly blind to their own bigotry, in the manner of Sotomayor. This is why few one take them at all seriously when they become a caricature in preaching to the rest of us about bigotry, prejudice or racism.

    Is anyone at all surprised when Hillary on the campaign trail starts going on in this mock southern black voice ( “I aint tired no more” or some sort of silliness) when speaking to a black audience? Of course not, these sort of ludicrous actions are expected. Is it astonishing in the least when Al Gore went into his black preacher routine when addressing black crowds during the 2000 campaign? Not in the least. Is it any wonder the left could excuse Obama for attending a church whose only difference from the Third Reich, was the Nazis had a better dress code?

    People thought it was funny, hilarious, and also quite expected. The cloddishness of this sort of thing is not at all a surprise from the left, thus Sotomayors statements and actions don’t have much impact. It is like we have all moved on to a place where we expect liberals to be both sanctimonious on race, but also completely vapid, and completely non self aware on the issue they love to preach to others about. They are like the frequent dinner guest who often over drinks. Sometimes amusing and generally anticipated but endured because one understands that yes, he knows no better, but sometimes the high jinks can be quite funny or entertaining.
    ,
    So sure Sotomayor belongs to some all chicks club. Bill Clinton was pretty infamous for playing at all white golf clubs. That’s fine, and I really don’t care. Clinton used sanctimony on Blacks and race as a vote getter, everyone knew that, it was expected. When you later had Bob Geldoff and Bono running around saying Bush 2 had done far more for Africa and black people than Clinton ever had, that was expected as well. Everyone knew that whatever Bush did for black people, it wouldn’t be loaded with sanctimony. Everyone knew when Clinton did his Marcus Garvey routine that the continent wide tour was strictly show. Nothing would result from it and nothing was expected. It was simply fanfare to dress up sanctimony into an amusement ride for us all. Sure Bush gets no credit and Bill gets the laughs, but we all know the game by now. Is it better to get credit? Or to be a funny boob full of racial puffery?

    The important thing is that these sorts of people continue to appear as ridiculous caricatures when they then pretend to lecture the rest of us on the importance of diversity, acceptance, and the evils of racism. Its important to keep laughing. Just as we all do at the hyper pronunciation of Spanish origin names of Democratic affiliation, while Asians, Italians and everyone else can go to hell. Diversity apparently means rolling your R’s but only if your party affiliation is D. Lately I have been trying to pronounce Barak Obama with a Kenyan accent. It seems appropriate, I mean Sotomayor is from New York, why go overboard with her name alone? Sensitivity for everyone is my watch word.

    It’s ludicrous, and I am sure most take away that perception. In that sense the Sotomayors of the country serve a good purpose. Their approbations on discrimination really don’t have any effect, but rather serve to remind us all that as a country we really have overcome this issue and its nice to be at a point where virtually every case of preaching about it is something we can laugh at now. Just like the drunken dinner guest. Something good to laugh at and endure, but only fully understood when the vapidity of the pronouncements is taken in context of the speakers mental faculty.

    • valley person

      “A woman who has said wise Latinas are smarter than old, white men,”

      Only she did not say that. She said:
      “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.”

      The word “smarter” was not used.

      Rupert wrote: “I think this is why the left has such a problem with issues of race and prejudice.

      You keep trying to make that case and keep failing. The only “problem” the left has had with race and prejudice has been the resistance of the right in ending discrimination based race and prejudice.

      As is the case with Republican conservatives who keep tripping over their own weenies while running campaigns on “family values,” Democratic liberals do not always live up to what they preach with respect to prejudice. In both cases this does not negate the underlying value or one’s policy promition of it.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >You keep trying to make that case and keep failing.

        Hoo boy Dean, you are going to try this tactic again? You know, every time we have this discussion, it usually results in you getting so cranky you wind up making a bunch of racist jokes or remarks. Im kind of suprised you are going to try yet again.

        Oh well, since I am the giving soul I am, Ill indulge you again.

        You don’t think people laugh at the left with their hyper pronunciation of Spanish origin names?

        Saturday night live did a skit on it about a decade ago.

        You don’t think people laughed at Bill Clintons sudden interest in Africa during Monika?

        Get some newspaper archives.

        You don’t think sarcastic overblown charges of racism aren’t standard fare for joke punch lines? Get a Chris Rock tape. Half of his jokes are about the ludicrousness with which the left is now treated when they come up with lines like “oh that’s racist” “oh, prejudice still permeates American society”.

        You don’t think people will laugh if Sotomayor ever preaches about prejudice or bigotry after her statements? You are probably living in dream land.

        Basically with this sort of nonsense, the left on racial issues has marginalized themselves about as much as they have on other issues like sexual harassment. They have used it as a partisan cudgel, while excusing it among their own ranks for so long that they simply look ludicrous almost every time they make the charge.

        Look at your own example. You cant really make the charge of racism or bigotry on this blog because it would seem ridiculous after your racist Obama jokes during the campaign.

        Get real, if you think the left charging racism, bigotry or prejudice is looked as anything but ridiculous in the vast majority of cases, you are smoking something.

        >As is the case with Republican conservatives who keep tripping over their own weenies while running campaigns on “family values,” Democratic liberals do not always live up to what they preach with respect to prejudice. In both cases this does not negate the underlying value or one’s policy promotion of it.

        Wow, I am really suprised you would set yourself up like this. Ok – sorry, but you asked for it.

        Name for me one Republican conservative who ever tripped over his own weenie who wasn’t roundly criticized and castigated for his hypocrisy by fellow conservatives?

        Name one.

        Name one who didn’t resign or wasn’t drummed out of his office by his fellow conservatives? All I can think of is Larry Craig for bathroom toe tapping. Somehow he survived that, but I cannot think of a single conservative commentator who didnt say he should resign.

        You got another? Let’s hear it. I really doubt you do.

        Lastly – Name one conservative blog or talk radio show that did not criticize the Governor of South Carolina for his affair.

        OK – So – Let’s look at the left.

        Did they drum out Chris Dodd for his racist remarks? Nope. Didn’t hear thing one about it. Sure seemed a big deal when Trent Lott did the exact same thing a month before. Front page news.

        Did they drum out Clinton for his sexual harassment? Nope, they supported him. All of a sudden the line “women don’t make this up” that we heard from NOW during Clarence Thomas seemed inoperative.

        Can you name a single liberal commentator, news outlet or anything that called for Clinton to step down? Nope. They sure called for Bob Packwood to step down real quick, they sure called for Clarence Thomas to withdraw real quick. Hey remember when Democrats wouldnt confirm John Tower as Sec Def because he was a “womanizer”? Sure seems funny now after Clinton. Zounds what hypocrasy.

        How about Bush? Boy, they sure went after him for not demanding South Carolina remove the confederate flag from the capitol. Boy, that was a big deal. Hey, did they ever go after Fritz Hollings, the governor who put it up there? Oh no, that’s right, he was a democrat, guess they didn’t want to risk losing his seat over in the Senate. Nope, sure didn’t hear a lot of criticism of Senator Hollings for putting the flag up in the first place.

        Hey, speaking of Clarence Thomas – Did we ever see anyone fired for the lawn jockey portrayals of him, or how about the aunt Jemimah cartoons of Condi Rice? Nope

        Name for me one democrat who has been drummed out of office for making racist remarks? Chris Dodd is still there. Sotomayor looks like she will be confirmed, and she’s a member of La Raza to boot!

        Anyway – Nope, you can’t name one. And that’s the whole point.

        We have established that my argument is correct regarding the general laughter when the left cries racism. Comedians have made careers of it so obviously your denial of it is a little half baked. What’s nice here is you have helped illustrate the lefts silliness in another way. The Republicans do tend to criticize their own when it comes to hypocrisy on issues, the left is incapable of such self examination.

        That’s why, as a whole, the left tends to the totally hypocritical when it comes to racial matters. They simply can’t criticize their own, and due to the lefts notorious lack of introspection, they cant see it within themselves. You are proof positive of that Dean and your comments here prove that with alarming frequency. Of course, the racist joking during the election was pretty much the zenith, but there have been other instances as well.

        Who knows, maybe you have some case that people don’t regularly mock or not take seriously charges of racism when they come from the left. You sure haven’t made it here though.

        • valley person

          “You don’t think people laugh at the left with their hyper pronunciation of Spanish origin names?”

          I don’t know. I suppose it makes some people laugh. Hell, it probably makes Spanish speaking people laugh when conservative Gringos mispronounce their names as well. Your point?

          “You don’t think people laughed at Bill Clintons sudden interest in Africa during Monika? ”

          And this has to do with Sotomayor…..?

          “You don’t think sarcastic overblown charges of racism aren’t standard fare for joke punch lines? ”

          Does that include Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity accusing Sotomayor of being a racist? If so then yes. Made for some great sarcasm on the part of Oberman and Stewart.

          “Basically with this sort of nonsense, the left on racial issues has marginalized themselves…”

          Marginalized ourselves with whom? Rush Limbaugh and his diminishing dittoheads? Well that is the price we pay I guess.

          “They have used it as a partisan cudgel…”

          Some have. Just like some on the right use “family values” as a partisan cudgel, implying that those on the left don’t have families or values. Its politics. Get your own cudgel.

          “You cant really make the charge of racism or bigotry on this blog because it would seem ridiculous after your racist Obama jokes during the campaign. ”

          I can make whatever charge I want. The great thing about blogs is that one need take no responsibility for one’s charges. Or at least having been steadily on the receiving end of your charges, one suspects that those who make them do so with impunity.

          “Get real, if you think the left charging racism, bigotry or prejudice is looked as anything but ridiculous in the vast majority of cases…”

          Again, looked at by whom? You? And the case at hand is Lars, Rush, Newt, and I suppose you charging Sotomayor with being racist. Why isn’t that equally as ludicrous to you Rupert? Your whole case is based on one out of context statement that is misquoted by Lars right here. I mean…talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

          “Name for me one Republican conservative who ever tripped over his own weenie who wasn’t roundly criticized and castigated for his hypocrisy by fellow conservatives? ”

          Believe it or not, I try not to keep track of who criticizes whom.

          “Name one who didn’t resign or wasn’t drummed out of his office by his fellow conservatives?”

          OK. Vitter has not resigned or been drummed out. Ensign has not resigned. Sanford has said he is not resigning. Newt did not resign over his affair, but over losing a lot of seats in the House. Spitzer did resign after being drummed out by the NY Times. Oh wait, he is a liberal Democrat and they are the liberal media. Now I’m confused.

          “Lastly – Name one conservative blog or talk radio show that did not criticize the Governor of South Carolina for his affair.”

          Believe it or not I don’t track them. But I did catch that Rush blamed Obama for Sanford’s affair, ignoring of course that the affair began well before Obama was elected. But hey, whatever. Obama may have been ahead in the polls so Sanford got depressed.

          “Did they drum out Clinton for his sexual harassment? ”

          Sexual harrassment? Um….you’ll have to explain that one. I thought it was a mutual situation.

          “We have established that my argument is correct regarding the general laughter when the left cries racism.”

          Correction Rupert. *You* have *asserted* this.
          *We* have established absolutely nothing.

          “The Republicans do tend to criticize their own when it comes to hypocrisy on issues, the left is incapable of such self examination.”

          Oy. Then why do so many on the left pay good money for therapy? Why did the NY Times go after Spitzer? Why has the Oregonian been hounding Sam Adams to resign? Why do you make baseless charges with such confidence?

          “Who knows, maybe you have some case that people don’t regularly mock or not take seriously charges of racism when they come from the left.”

          No, I don’t have such a case for you. I do have the entire history of the civil rights movement. But why bother?

          Here is the thing Rupert. You are a smart fellow, and you have rationalized yourself into twisting history and who stands for what in order to make sense of the hall of mirrors you inhabit. Its beyond my capability to untangle the threads of the belief system you have tightly wrapped yourself in. I don’t question the general premise that some people left of center use racism as a club. And I don’t question that there is racism amongst people left of center. Hell, most people in Western Europe display racism and they are pretty far left compared to even me.

          But I’ve lived a long time and I have studied history. “The left” has fought a centuries old battle to extend civil rights and equality to people that “the right” has fought to keep in their place. This history gives “the left” some justification to forgive ourselves our tresspasses, even as we fail to forgive you and yours for tresspasses on our turf.

          So accuse away. Continue to make arses out of yourselves by claiming Sotomayor is a Puerto Rican racist who hates old white guys, much as you unsuccessfully tried to paint Obama and his wife. Hispanic voters are the fastest growing demographic in the nation. Obama baited a trap for you and you stepped right into it. Mazeltov!

          Next up is immigration reform. The battle over that should put the final nail in the political coffin you built for yourselves, unless opposing global warming legislation already did that (you threw the under 30 vote away for a generation on that one).

          • The Final Solution

            Maybe we should keep liberals in their place: The grave.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Ho hum – Ok, I knew you wouldn’t be able to come up with much in the way of self criticizm. Thats my point.

    The real irony is that since you are the guy who makes the racist jokes on the blog, one would think you could at least laugh at yourself.

    Anyway, don’t expect to be taken to seriously when you get on my case about abortion, and then go on to excuse thugs like the Black Panthers or Al Sharpton. Those guys kill people, you excuse them. I voice an opinion about a late term abortionist, you accuse me of inciting violence.

    See how that works? It’s just impossible to take you seriously.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    PS – When in the world did I try and paint Obama and his wife as people who hated old white guys?

    What are you on?.

    I have never really mentioned Obama or his wife’s views and race at all.

    I said Obama went to a church that was essentially run by a Nazi and it took twenty years and two cloddish news conferences for him to figure it out but that’s about it.

    You need to stop assuming my views based upon race. But then again, liberals have been pretty notorious for assuming monolithic thinking of a group based upon racial characteristics.

    • valley person

      “But then again, liberals have been pretty notorious for assuming monolithic thinking of a group….”

      Read that aloud to yourself Rupert. Slowly.

      Are you a liberal? Is that what has been going on here all this time?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Dean – Why is it you constantly demonstrate a complete lack of logic skills?

        Assuming coincidence of thought in people who ascribe to a political philosophy is totally reasonable. In fact calling a group of people liberal or conservative without that coincidence of thought would be ludicrous.

        What liberals do have a tendency for is assuming monolithic thought among a group based upon unrelated characteristics to the thoughts they ascribe. An example would be liberals and “women’s issues”, or “minority issues”. They constantly use the terms, and assume coincidence of thought apparently based upon mammary glands and skin pigment.

        No matter the intention, it is simple bigotry. Much as Sotomayors “wise latina woman” comment complemented Latina’s, “black’s sure can dance” complements blacks. In this day and age the only people who tend to make such statements do tend to be liberals, you being further evidence of that with your racist jokes on this blog during the campaign. One simply can’t find parallels to this, or the tolerance of it, in conservative spheres to the extent it exists in liberal ones. Therefore absent evidence to the contrary it is perfectly fine to note it as a liberal phenomenon.

        • valley person

          “One simply can’t find parallels to this, or the tolerance of it, in conservative spheres to the extent it exists in liberal ones.”

          With all due respect, one isn’t looking hard enough.

  • scott huminski

    SOTOMAYOR IGNORANT OF THE LAW

    Sotomayor flunks on getting the most basic principle of appellate law wrong – the Standard of Review.

    In Huminski v. Haverkoch, 11/5/04, 03-7036 2d. Cir., Sotomayor reveals an ignorance of the law by failing to apply the correct standard of review to an important civil rights case. She found appellate review was for reversible error when the correct standard of review for such a case (summary judgment) is De Novo.

    A simple google on, “standard of review for summary judgment de novo” supplies tens of authorities on the issue. I guess Sotomayor would rather be wrong than google on such a rudimentary issue. She also could have assigned her flock of law clerks to research the issue. Further, on a motion for rehearing specifically pointing out her error she did not act and correct it.

    Here is the link to the Sotomayor summary order from this case in which she presided over.

    http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/doc/03-7036_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/hilite/

    See also,
    http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/cja-members-efforts/huminski-scott.htm

    Where the order states “For the Court”, it refers to Sotomayor and the 2 other judges on the case.

    Empathy, not much empathy for this wrongly convicted and incarcerated citizen,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

    See a different case of mine, Huminski v. Corsones, No. 02-6201 (2d Cir. 10/07/2004) (“We review a district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment de novo.”)

    — Scott Huminski
    (202) 239-1252

    • Rupert in Springfield

      I’m not sure anyone has argued that Sotomayor is a particularly brilliant judge. More than a few people expect her to be over turned tomorrow on the New Haven fire fighters case. I think her chief qualification is she considers herself a wise Latina woman and she has an interesting back story. Don’t expect a shining light of judicial insight from this one any time soon. Expect more along the lines of a Joe Biden gaff machine, but in female and black robed form. The membership in a sexist club was kind of a hoot. If nothing else, she will be funnier than Souter, who was sort of a stiff.

  • Joe

    This lady is as far out left as our “commander”. It is sad to see such pathetic losers showing the peter principal to its fullest effect.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Hey, and waddaya know, looks like Sotomayor was overturned on the New Haven fire fighters this morning.

    Ahhh, there is sweet justice in that.

    “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Wrote Justice Kennedy for the majority opinion.

    All this was supposedly about adhering to the 1964 civil rights act.

    Personally I agreed with Sotomayors opinion. However I agreed with her decision for different reasons. It would appear to me that any reading of Griggs v Duke power would make things really clear. You don’t have to prove intent on an employers part, merely disparate impact alone can be prima facie evidence to prove racism.

    The good or bad of the 64 act is not the question to me. The quota establishing aspects of the Griggs decision are. While I didn’t like Sotomayors decision, and certainly agree there is some cause to be concerned about her personal bigotry she might have brought into her reasoning, I did agree it was in keeping with Griggs.

    Hopefully this will be the start of undoing Griggs, which would be a good thing. Were Sotomayor to be undone as well, that would be a two-fer.

  • Anonymous

    Did you guys hear the Supreme Cpirt pvertirmed jer decision on reverse discrimination. Seems she did discriminate against the firefighters. What goes round comes round.

  • valley person

    Alito was reversed 4 times prior to joining the court. And the individual Sotomayor will replace, Souter, voted to uphold her decision.

  • Anonymous

    Good grief, at least spell Sotomayor’s first name correctly. C’mon, Lars, you were a reporter and anchor once…get it right.

  • Joe

    How can anyone spell these funny sounding foreign names?
    I don’t blame Lars at all.

    • Anonymous

      Nice racist comment, there, Joe. Go back under the rock you crawled out from under.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)