June 18, 2009

A tactical suggestion for the Sotomayor hearings

When it comes to racial preferences, Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor are ideological twins, although most Americans don't realize it yet. Unlike the master politician, however, Sotomayor tends to rub people the wrong way. Still, the Republican Senators are highly unlikely to be able to stop Sotomayor. And it's not clear that they should want to, since once on the Court, the mediocre and abrasive Sotomayor is unlikely to evolve into a William Brennan-like master backstage manipulator of the other Justices.

Still, a lengthy hearing over Sotomayor would be the best opportunity for the GOP to begin the process of enlightening the public that Obama isn't the post-racial President that David Axelrod has spun him as. Clearly, the New Haven firefighter reverse discrimination case of Ricci v. DeStefano should be central to the hearings.

Yet, old-fashioned chivalry and post-modern sensitivity both dictate that a bunch of white male conservative Senators like Jeff Sessions can't be seen asking too many probing questions of a lady / minority. The GOP needs a bad guy to pound in these hearings, but Judge Sotomayor isn't a guy.

So, the GOP Senators should subpeona a witness on the Ricci v. DeStefano case. They should subpeona and then roast alive on the witness stand the defendant, beady-eyed New Haven mayor John DeStefano (seen here), who engineered cheating Ricci and company out of their promotions. This will associate DeStefano's petty political machinations to please his main black supporter with Sotomayor, Obama, and racial preference supporters in general.

For examples of the kind of questions they could flail DeStefano with, just refer to the Supreme Court's oral questioning in the case. For example, Mayor DeStefano's city attorney claimed that the city had strong evidence for discarding the test as invalid after finding out the results by race. But Justice Samuel Alito pointed out the preposterousness of that claim in a scalding rhetorical question:
"[The city] chose the company that framed the test, and then as soon as it saw the results, it decided it wasn't going to go forward with the promotions. The company offered to validate the test. The City refused to pay for that, even though that was part of its contract with the company. And all it has is this testimony by a competitor, Mr. Hornick, who said—who hadn't seen the test, and he said, I could do a better test—you should make the promotions based on this, but I could give you—I could draw up a better test, and by the way, here's my business card if you want to hire me in the future.

“How's that a strong basis in the evidence?"

This could be fun.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

55 comments:

t said...

They should ask her about her old remarks on test bias, and about her Ricci remark in court that no one was talking about hiring unqualified people. These are both issues for factfinders, not appellate judges, in these types of cases.

It would be good to see her defend her views on tests and what it means to hire qualified people.

Then they can ask her how her previously-formed opinions of biased tests helped her in deciding the Ricci case.

RKU said...

Look, there's a huge problem here with making a big deal of the AA issue...

Virtually ALL the prominent Republicans/conservatives from Bush to McCain to the ones probably running in 2012 *also* support racial/ethnic AA, though some of them sometimes pretend not to.

For example, just look at who's the Republican Chairman and whom the Republicans picked to reply to the SOTU Address.

Furthermore, the Republican/conservative support for AA often tends to be MORE extreme and ridiculous than the Democratic support. That's because the vast majority of politically-active "minorities" tend to be Democrats/liberals, so the Republican/conservative talent pool is about a millimeter deep.

Let's take a very blatant example. Is there anyone so totally dishonest as to believe that Clarence Thomas was/is "qualified" to be on the High Court? Basically, since Marshall was retiring, the Reagan people felt they had to name a black as a replacement, and since there wasn't any conservative black even remotely qualified, they chose Thomas instead.

My guess is that Sotomayor has about 100x the academic/judicial qualifications as poor Thomas. But Thomas is still the great hero of all the Republicans/conservatives who endlessly denounce AA!

It's a little like Clinton earning $100M or whatever once he left the White House, then turning around and giving lots of speeches denouncing America's culture of "greed".

Anonymous said...

ha ha ha you're working under the delusion that any of the republican elite oppose AA.

Anonymous said...

this is funny

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/18/
the-diversity-that-dare-not-sp

dearieme said...

If she believes in hiring unqualified people because of their race, what is the point of anyone arguing that she is qualified to be a Supreme Court judge?

AllanF said...

Sh*t. That is something I would have loved to see happen. No offense Steve, but now that I've read here, I'm fairly certain it won't.

Instead we'll likely get John McCain asking stupid soft-ball questions on torture. <sigh>

Henry Canaday said...

What I can't figure is why New Haven needs a fire department. Last time I was there, every decent building that wasn't part of Yale had been burned down or torn down. Robert Bork famously described New Haven as The Athens of Pizza Parlors. That is about what was left.

Maybe there is method in the mayor's madness. A truly incompetent fire department could let Yale recede into the ashes as well. Then, there would be more opportunities for pizza entrepreneurs.

John Anello said...

It would obviously be fun and interesting to see her square off with GOP senators on AA; however, it is unlikely she will be asked any tough questions. Even if a Jeff Sessions or a Jim Demint decides to probe her as to her opinions on AA, it is unlikely to result in a failure to confirm her. The media would spin any AA questions, particularly those from a white southern senator, as racist and an attempt to bar the historic appointment of the first Hispanic to the nation’s highest Court by the already unpopular GOP.

What would be interesting, and perhaps more effective, is a question regarding her comments at Georgetown about public policy being made in the Circuit Courts. She was clearly absent on the day when her Yale professor was discussing the separation of powers doctrine. Such a question would not be anathema to politicians and would raise serious doubts about her qualifications. Please remember, there are many more reasons than opinions on AA to keep her off the Court.

testing99 said...

It will not happen Steve because White Women are the demographic basis for AA.

I mean, really, let's get honest here. A mere 12% of the population drives AA? Among nearly all White REPUBLICANS? Who do you think votes for, say, Jeff Sessions? Blacks? Hispanics? Come on.

Hispanics are not driving AA either, they are still too small a portion of the electorate, as opposed to the population.

It's White Women who drive AA. Who form it's electoral support and who have moved to support it at every turn.

THAT won't change at all, in fact we will see FURTHER support for AA. Even more because now with the Government in Obama's private finance rules running everything, all hiring, firing, promotion, work assignement, etc. decisions are run through the AA filter.

It's pure spoils politics, and comes at the natural expense of White Men. Because most White Women are either unmarried (the majority of them now according to the Census Bureau) OR viewing marriage as a temporary thing, they don't need to care about their husbands. White Women lose a little by marginal opportunities going to Blacks or Hispanics of either sex, or Gays, but win far larger by getting opportunities that would go to White men. Most of whom White Women if they are honest despise, for being "less masculine."

The political fall-out is only going to galvanize more support for AA by White Women. Yes they are perfectly happy to AA into ineffectiveness the Fire and Police Depts. Because they only need them on the margins, whereas the gain in immediate employment opportunities in Obama's government run everything is much larger.

Shrug. I see a lot of guys evading the issue. AA just didn't "happen" by magic fairy dust or Media conspiracies or pols selling out their voters interests -- it came about because it has the overwhelming support of White Women. Who duh, win in the AA system.

Anonymous said...

I have mixed feeling here. On the one hand, she sux.

On the other hand, anyone the Dems put on the court will be a joke, and there is at least some prospect that Sotomayer will not be on the court for a long time, as she has diabetes.

Anonymous said...

My guess is that Sotomayor has about 100x the academic/judicial qualifications as poor Thomas

RKU, defending Hispanics and attacking blacks. What else is new?
Sotomayor by her own admission had mediocre SATs.

Jim O said...

Steve, you should get a lawyer to review your stuff when it touches on legal issues. I'm sure there are many who would be glad to serve in that capacity pro bono. Me, for instance.
This is a clever idea, but...

PRCalDude said...

Steve,

While you continue to have great suggestions for the Stupid Party, the reality is that you will be ignored and the Stupid Party will continue in its ways.

Anonymous said...

In short, if you're going to lose to crooks, at least make sure EVERYONE WHO'S PAYING ATTENTION knows they're crooks, and why.

That way Americans will have no excuses.

That's my policy too.

~ Svigor

Chris Anderson said...

RKU--

FYI Clarence Thomas was appointed by GHW Bush, not Reagan. Was he an AA pick? Sure, but I would characterize it a little differently that he was a "slot" or "quota" pick rather than AA. Slots for Catholic or Western or Jewish justices have been around in one form or another since the 19th Century.

IMO, whether he was qualified or not (a slippery term!), he's been the justice most inclined to actually pay attention to the Constitution. I think that made him a good pick, regardless of the motives.

Anonymous said...

Is there anyone so totally dishonest as to believe that Clarence Thomas was/is "qualified" to be on the High Court?



Why don't you tell me what you think the "qualifications" are to be on the Supreme Court? Because I'm 100% certain that Thomas was/is "qualified".

Anonymous said...

Off Topic:

New York Times admits (tacitly) that 90% of murders in New York City are perpetrated by blacks (61%) and Hispanics (29%)!

http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map

Click "Race of Perpetrator"

RKU said...

RKU, defending Hispanics and attacking blacks. What else is new?
Sotomayor by her own admission had mediocre SATs.


Actually, I'd argue that most of the Latinos whom the Republicans/conservatives promote for AA purposes also tend to be the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel.

Mel Martinez, the previous RNC Chairman, seemed like a zero, and Alberto Gonzalez, Bush's AG seemed like an utterly incompetent and dishonest puppet.

This really isn't too surprising. After all, if 95% of politically active Republicans/conservatives are white, but if support for AA causes them to promote non-whites to a large fraction of all the top leadership positions, they end up mostly with idiots or crooks.

It's pretty similar with regard to Jewish Republicans/conservatives, the main difference being that the ones they put at the top tend to be reasonably competent but totally insane, which causes even more problems.

Anonymous said...

I forwarded this post to Jeff Session's Senate office. Hope some staffer reads it.

Anonymous said...

You said something nice (by which I mean recognizing a basic level of cognitive competence) about the Irish!!! Finally, Thanks Steve-O.

Harry Baldwin said...

While they're grilling Mayor De Stefano, they could ask him how he justifies giving Prius drivers immunity from parking meter fines in New Haven. Could anything be more SWPL? What about the disparate impact of such a policy? That and making New Haven an amnesty city, as if it doesn't have enough problems. What a dickhead. I DESPISE him.

beowulf said...

You can't stop affirmative action, you can only hope to contain it. And its pretty straightforward how to do this. There are a lot of underachieving groups in America, but only two of them are descendants of groups specifically mentioned in the Constitution: Indians (Art. I grants Congress power “To regulate Commerce... the Indian Tribes") and slaves (13th Amendment and several defunct clauses in Art. I and Art. IV of the original Constitution).

So create a registration list (similar to how Indian tribes have enrolled members) for the descendants of American slavery. If you're an enrolled member of (let's call it) the Emancipation List or of an Indian Tribe, you qualify for AA. If you're not in either group you don't.

That would cut Hispanics, African or Caribbean immigrants and their children off from affirmative action (sorry Mr. President, though his children would qualify through their mother). And, for odd ducks like SBA programs that have AA for South Asians and women, it would have an even larger demographic impact.

Richard Hoste said...

"It's White Women who drive AA. Who form it's electoral support and who have moved to support it at every turn."

Ah, Testing. I want you to know that I wrote this with you in mind.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to tie it in with Iranian nukes.

Anonymous said...

This is a far better picture of his Honor DeStefano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_DeStefano,_Jr._in_2008.JPG

JudgeStone said...

See, this is much better than the Seinfeld thing. Genius. Simple, effective, concrete, left field, very down-to-the-frontlines thing.

Reg C├Žsar said...

Is there anyone so totally dishonest as to believe that Clarence Thomas was/is "qualified" to be on the High Court? --RKU

In what way is he less qualified than, say, Harry Blackmun? And who wouldn't prefer a mediocre mind (attached to a working spine!) attempting to preserve the legal system, to a stellar-but-evil one hellbent on destroying it?

Yes, Clarence Thomas is "AA"-- he's there to represent those of us in the "common sense" population! He has more of that quality than than everyone on the left half of the Court put together.


My guess is that Sotomayor has about 100x the academic/judicial qualifications as poor Thomas. --RKU

If she only had twice Justice Thomas's, she'd be dangerous.

Not that Thomas is perfectly consistent. I'm sure RKU would wholeheartedly agree that the authors and debaters of the Constitution would consider it nuts to think that blacks and 'Latinos' have some 'right to bear arms'. After all, they were common-sense guys.

DLL said...

RKU sed:

My guess is that Sotomayor has about 100x the academic/judicial qualifications as poor Thomas. But Thomas is still the great hero of all the Republicans/conservatives who endlessly denounce AA!



RKU cuts to the heart of the matter. I’d say is observations about Thomas also apply to Andrew Young, Condi Rice, Colin Powell and Obama, who is way overestimated due to the constant media barrage. Basically, if a government is serious about the quality of public life, there is a strong case for race-based discrimination in public service. That's why countries that care about their futures try and keep out races deemed to be less competent and in some way destructive (thin Japan or Korea). Just watch the farce concerning the Gypsies in Europe. EVERYBODY tries to keep them at bay, but dare not say so. Even though Steve dodges the bullet, basically he says the same thing, and I guess most liberals with some responsibility think the same thing deep inside their hearts. Basically it’s a no-brainer. Just as good companies scrounge campuses for talent, good governments instinctively know where to go look for good people, unless there is political bean-counting and nepotism, which unfortunately is the usual situation in the West. So it means that most current western pols are lying. Since the GOP is forever grovelling before the feet of liberal Overlords, we can expect exactly zero serious grilling of Sotomayor.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Boy, it's kinda weird to surf at a Paleo site like iSteve and see people dissing our most conservative Supreme Court justice who just so happened to send his son to Thomas Jonathan Jackson's Military Institution.

DLL said...

As an example of countries which groom their racial composition I forgot to add Israel to Japan and Korea.

Anonymous said...

They don't need to pistol with Sotomayor, they just need to calmly get her to say what her opinions are. The Dems will be on high alert to twist anything into "sexism" or "anti-latinoism" because that is what they do. Tje Repubs need to gently pin the tail on the donkey by connecting Sotomayor to La Raza and Ricci. Let talk radio do the rest.

OneSTDV said...

It's interesting that Obama has made numerous comments that rival "wise Latina woman", yet not one news media decided to read his 400 page autobiography (well except one blogger). He even made similarly racially divisive comments during campaigning, such as "typical white person" and "they're going to make you afraid of me because I'm black" (paraphrasing but he basically said that) and "I don't look like all those other presidents".

If these statements, in conjunction with Rev Wright, can't dent the Obama post-racial armor, I doubt his SCOTUS nominee will.

Anonymous said...

Hoste:

Moxon pops up on Glenn Sacks blog from time to time. Moxon is great.

Seamus said...

Is there anyone so totally dishonest as to believe that Clarence Thomas was/is "qualified" to be on the High Court?

Believing that Thomas was/is qualified is not dishonesty. Maybe you meant to say "Is anyone so stupid as to believe. . ." or "Is anyone so dishonest as to pretend to believe. . .".

Anonymous said...

AA *might* end when we adopt the communist practice of paying "each according to his need". Then, a black bus driver would make the same as a white rocket scientist.

Anonymous said...

according to pat buchanan's article, :Two weeks ago, The New York Times reported that, to get up to speed on her English skills at Princeton, Sotomayor was advised to read children's classics and study basic grammar books during her summers. How do you graduate first in your class at Princeton if your summer reading consists of "Chicken Little" and "The Troll Under the Bridge"?

Anonymous said...

Shrug. I see a lot of guys evading the issue. AA just didn't "happen" by magic fairy dust or Media conspiracies or pols selling out their voters interests -- it came about because it has the overwhelming support of White Women. Who duh, win in the AA system.

Your logic isn't completely clear here. Is it:

1) AA came about because pols were following the votes

?

Because that makes me wonder why the border's still porous. It makes me wonder why AA isn't discussed honestly (probably the majority of the women who support it haven't a clue as to the reality of AA or its ramifications) in the public sphere (why dodge the issue if one has a strong constituency?).

I think you're a lowlife, EN. A dissimulator and a knave. And your arguments don't make sense (does anyone REALLY think one woman in fifty who supports AA goes through the thought process EN describes here?).

In EN's world it's direct democracy. Back in the real world where the rest of us live, roughly nothing gets done by plebiscite.

Anonymous said...

At Harvard non-Jewish whites do all the sacrificing vis-a-vis preferences and admissions.

Yeah, sounds like exactly the sort of thing white women dream up in their spare time.

His stuff about "conspiracy theories" is hilarious too. He dismisses the idea of elites out of hand as a "conspiracy theory," but people take him seriously? WTF?

Has there EVER been a state that wasn't run by an elite?

Anonymous said...

An example of Evil Neocon's unsubstantiated BS: couple days ago I read at New Scientist about a study that shows women show a strong preference for intelligent men (ceteris paribus). There goes his mendacious assertion that women hate smart men.

~ Svigor

Anonymous said...

---How do you graduate first in your class at Princeton if your summer reading consists of "Chicken Little" and "The Troll Under the Bridge"?---


Verde Huevos and Ham, gringo! Seriously, she's an idiot.

Anonymous said...

The 21st century will close out with China as the absolute dominant power. This will be apparent by midcentury at the latest. Nothing compares for pure comic value the affirmative action debate in this declining country. As if the dominant power to-be cares a fig about it.

Ronduck said...

RKU said...

Is there anyone so totally dishonest as to believe that Clarence Thomas was/is "qualified" to be on the High Court?

I wouldn't doubt that Clarence Thomas is less than qualified than other potential Supreme Court nominees. You have to remember that both Reagan and Bush sr. had to deal with a Democratic Congress mostly under the control of Ted Kennedy. Ted and his Democrats were able to block Robert Bork, so had the Republican president not chosen a Black to replace the retiring Black justice then possibly no nomination would have gone through until Clinton was elected.

Anonymous said...

Sotomayor, if she gets on the Court, will be the FIRST WOMAN OF AFRICAN DESCENT to become a Supreme Court Justice. As a person of working class Puerto Rican origins, she is a biological mulatto (as are most Puerto Ricans). Why is this never mentioned? If she were of Anglo or Louisiana Creole origins, blacks and liberals would be claiming her as the "first BLACK WOMAN," etc. whether she liked it or not. Despite all the insults thrown at Sotomayor, she is spared the ULTIMATE INSULT of being called "black." Don't tell me she is exempt because she doesn't belong to the ethnic group descended from American slaves. The same can be said for Obama himself, and where does it say that Hispanics are exempt from the so-called "one drop rule"? Isn't it because Hispanics are politically strong enough to kick butt? Everything "understands" that their "black blood" is not to be officially mentioned.

Lucius Vorenus said...

beowulf: There are a lot of underachieving groups in America, but only two of them are descendants of groups specifically mentioned in the Constitution: Indians (Art. I grants Congress power “To regulate Commerce... the Indian Tribes") and slaves (13th Amendment and several defunct clauses in Art. I and Art. IV of the original Constitution)...

That would cut Hispanics, African or Caribbean immigrants and their children off from affirmative action (sorry Mr. President, though his children would qualify through their mother)...


Unless the aboriginal Hispanics were to claim [correctly] that they are, indeed, "Indians".

Speaking of which - did you know that Mexico, at ~100 million people, is generally considered to have the second largest number of spoken languages of any country in the world, with about 63?

First is India [dot, not feather], with ~1 billion people and approximately 122 major languages.


Anonymous: according to pat buchanan's article, :Two weeks ago, The New York Times reported that, to get up to speed on her English skills at Princeton, Sotomayor was advised to read children's classics and study basic grammar books during her summers. How do you graduate first in your class at Princeton if your summer reading consists of "Chicken Little" and "The Troll Under the Bridge"?

You hold a knife to your university's jugular by filing a complaint against it with the old Health, Education, and Welfare [HEW] Department, while you are still only a sophomore:


Latin student groups assail University hiring performance
By David Liemer
April 22, 1974
dailyprincetonian.com

Accion Puertorriquena and the Chicano Organization of Princeton have filed a complaint with the New York office of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), charging the university with a "lack of commitment" in hiring Puerto Rican and Chicano administrators and faculty and recruiting students from these minority groups...

"This is a claim that has been made to us continuously," said Sonia Sotomayor '76, co-chairman of Accion Puertorriquena. "But there were many openings when Bowen revamped the administration two years ago, and no genuine efforts to find Latinos were made then," she charged...


Letter to the Editor: Anti-Latino discrimination at Princeton
by Sonia Sotomayor '76
May 10, 1974
dailyprincetonian.com

Letter to the Editor: Criticizing the process of selecting a 'minority dean'
by Sonia Sotomayor '76 et al
Sept. 12, 1974
dailyprincetonian.com

Back for Pyne Prize luncheon, Chicanos find 'changed' campus
By Tom Streithorst
March 1, 1976
dailyprincetonian.com


And then you just sit back and wait for the university administrators to cave, because you know full well that they have no gonads.

Half Sigma said...

The Republican party demonstrates time and time again that they are a bunch of wusses on race issues, easily cowed into submission by accusations of "racism."

I doubt that your dream scenario will happen.

Anyway, HBD is a bigger issue than whatever happened in the Ricci case. Without acknowledgement of HBD, there will be no useful discussion of affirmative action.

RKU said...

I wouldn't doubt that Clarence Thomas is less than qualified than other potential Supreme Court nominees. You have to remember that both Reagan and Bush sr. had to deal with a Democratic Congress mostly under the control of Ted Kennedy. Ted and his Democrats were able to block Robert Bork, so had the Republican president not chosen a Black to replace the retiring Black justice then possibly no nomination would have gone through until Clinton was elected.

That's a reasonable point, though I suspect that sincere support for "conservative anti-racism" (i.e. AA) was actually a bigger factor.

But that still doesn't explain why in the years since then, conservative/Republicans have endlessly touted poor incompetent Thomas as a towering intellectual hero of their movement, rather than just hiding him away somewhere in embarrassment. Just read some of the other comments on this anti-AA thread!

And what about RNC Chair Michael Steele? Do the Democrats in Congress also have veto power over the RNC? And "Julius Caesar Watts," who'd for years been one of the top Republicans in Congress? The list of extremely prominent (and totally incompetent) AA blacks among conservative/Republicans has grown very long these days...

Basically, the anti-AA conservatives/Republicans go around hero-worshiping lots of absolutely incompetent blacks while simultaneously denouncing the liberals/Democrats for being pro-AA and appointing semi-incompetent blacks. This makes them look utterly ridiculous, not least among anti-AA voters.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Democrats really should pick Bill Clinton as their point-guy in denouncing Republican greed. After all, he can use his private jet for the national speaking tour...

OneSTDV said...

"Without acknowledgement of HBD, there will be no useful discussion of affirmative action."

Definitely.

Further, the Ricci decision is almost entirely dependent on the false assumptions of anti-HBDers. Sotomayor and others are working off the assumption that racial egalitarianism is assuredly true. This is non-negotiable. As a result, she believes the results (which 100% contradict racial equality) MUST be caused by discrimination or test bias.

Same thing with affirmative action. Liberals keep wondering why it isn't creating a larger black middle class. So they continually revert back to the discrimination argument for an explanation.

Ronduck said...

RKU said...

But that still doesn't explain why in the years since then, conservative/Republicans have endlessly touted poor incompetent Thomas as a towering intellectual hero of their movement, rather than just hiding him away somewhere in embarrassment. Just read some of the other comments on this anti-AA thread!

Simple: Stockholm syndrome.

The liberals have been in charge since 1933 and have basically won. Conservatives are basically waging a completely incompetent fighting retreat because far too many of them accept the Left's first principles, most of which they acquired in school and from the telly.

Almost every Republican comeback since 1933 has basically achieved nothing, literally nothing. Back when FDR was president the Dems proposed national health care, and now after years of first creating the medicaid rolls and expanding them, they are on the verge with Obama of putting us all on them.

Watching the Dems has convinced me of one thing. Proving the existence of God (and intelligent design) may not be possible for most people, but proving that there is an organized conspiracy to destroy this country (intelligent destruction) is almost cake.

DAJ said...

Verde Huevos and Ham, gringo! Seriously, she's an idiot.

You mean "Huevos Verdes...."

Mr. Anon said...

"Seamus said...

Is there anyone so totally dishonest as to believe that Clarence Thomas was/is "qualified" to be on the High Court?

Believing that Thomas was/is qualified is not dishonesty. Maybe you meant to say "Is anyone so stupid as to believe. . ." or "Is anyone so dishonest as to pretend to believe. . ."."

I really don't care whether Thomas was qualified by this or that standard. A lot of being "qualified" is based on a candidate's ABA rating. That would be fine if the leadership of the ABA were disinterested legal scholars grounded in the American tradition. But they are not - they are an assembly of ambulance chasers and liberal "change-agents". So screw them, and what they think.

Thomas has ruled according to a traditional understanding of the law, and with a degree of common sense that some other justices do not possess. And he meets the three criteria I demand in a justice: 1.) He has read the Constitution, 2.) He understands the Constitution, and 3.) He agrees with the Constitution.

Other than Scalia, Thomas is the only reliably conservative vote on the court. He's more than just okay by me. I wish we had another justice like him.

Anonymous said...

Mainstream American race politics are entirely dependent on false assumptions

Fixed that for you.

~ Svigor

Truth said...

"And what about RNC Chair Michael Steele? Do the Democrats in Congress also have veto power over the RNC? And "Julius Caesar Watts," who'd for years been one of the top Republicans in Congress? The list of extremely prominent (and totally incompetent) AA blacks among conservative/Republicans has grown very long these days..."

Which Repoublicans do you consider competent? Bush? Cheney? Dropout Limbaugh? Who?

Jack said...

The majority of white women do not support affirmative action. (Though the young single ones obsessively support abortion and gay marriage.) Non-young, or married white women are probably almost all against affirmative action. Just like most white men are. Young, single white women tend to be bleeding heart types and some probably support affirmative action, but it's certainly not an issue they really care about. Instead, the reason affirmative action continues is that to end it would cause cascading charges of "racism" and the media would be obsessive about it.

Anonymous said...

Instead, the reason affirmative action continues is that to end it would cause cascading charges of "racism" and the media would be obsessive about it.

Jack you may know your stuff on some issues, but you look like a fool on AA. There is no media, no elite, only Swipple single female voters who hate men, especially intelligent men.

~ Scots-Irish Zionist

Anonymous said...

"Which Repoublicans do you consider competent? Bush? Cheney? Dropout Limbaugh? Who?"

Bilbray, Brian (R-CA) - 100%
Burton, Dan (R-IN) - 100%
Duncan, John (R-TN) - 100%
Gingrey, Phil (R-GA) - 100%
Gohmert, Louie (R-TX) - 100%
Johnson, Sam (R-TX) - 100%
Jones, Walter (R-NC) - 100%
King, Steve (R-IA) - 100%
Kingston, Jack (R-GA) - 100%
Linder, John (R-GA) - 100%
Marchant, Kenny (R-TX) - 100%
Myrick, Sue (R-NC) - 100%
Price, Tom (R-GA) - 100%
Westmoreland, Lynn (R-GA) - 100%
Akin, Todd (R-MO) - 99%
Alexander, Rodney (R-LA) - 99%
Boozman, John (R-AR) - 99%
Sullivan, John (R-OK) - 99%
Aderholt, Robert (R-AL) - 98%
Broun, Paul (R-GA) - 98%
Fallin, Mary (R-OK) - 98%
Inhofe, James (R-OK) - 98%
Vitter, David (R-LA) - 98%
Mica, John (R-FL) - 96%
Barrasso, John (R-WY) - 95%

Truth said...

"Bilbray, Brian (R-CA) - 100%
Burton, Dan (R-IN) - 100%
Duncan, John (R-TN) - 100%..."

What exactly are these numbers supposed to imply?

I looked up Bilbray and it says he voted along with Bush 93% of the time. Does that mean Boy George gets a 93%?