NBC provided a platform Friday for President Obama to fire back at conservative critics of his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, as Brian Williams cued him up to agree her comment that a Latina judge would make better decisions than a white male one, is “one of those she'd rather have back.” Obama naturally agreed as NBC Nightly News aired his response for an uninterrupted two-plus minutes -- an eternity on TV news.
Fill-in anchor Lester Holt led with how “critics on the right tonight are finding some traction in comments she made back in 2001 suggesting a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better conclusion than a white male judge. And late today the President addressed it head on.” Viewers soon saw a clip of Williams at the White House with Obama, for a two-part prime time special next week:
This is the quote: “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.” It's your judgment -- perhaps having talked to the judge -- that, as we say, that's one of those she'd rather have back if she had it to re-do?
Obama began by agreeing “I'm sure she would have re-stated it” -- and he wrapped up his retort two minutes and ten seconds later by predicting “all of this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is.”
(Meanwhile, CBS discovered more proof Sotomayor is not liberal, describing her as “more centrist than opponents first thought.” Reporter Wyatt Andrews, who on Wednesday's CBS Evening News, contended Obama “found a judge with 17 years experience but no clear ideology on discrimination, gay rights, or abortion and who can't be easily defined by political labels,” returned Friday night to maintain: “It is also clear that Sotomayor is more centrist than opponents first thought. On SCOTUSblog, a neutral Web site, Tom Goldstein finds that the judge ruled against minorities in 45 out of 50 cases.” Goldstein asserted in a soundbite: “And it turns out that almost all the time she rejects claims of discrimination by minorities.”)
From the top of the Friday, May 29 NBC Nightly News:
LESTER HOLT: In the growing controversy over President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, critics on the right tonight are finding some traction in comments she made back in 2001 suggesting a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better conclusion than a white male judge. And late today the President addressed it head on, telling Brian Williams Sotomayor may have wanted to restate her point. Mr. Obama's comments came at the end of a day that Brian and an NBC News team spent with the President documenting life inside the White House for a two-night special to air next week here on NBC. The Sotomayor pick dominated a broad-ranging discussion and capped a day of extraordinary access into the Obama White House. NBC News White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie is also there tonight with more on the Sotomayor controversy. Savannah, good evening to you.SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Good evening, Lester. As you mentioned, those comments that Sotomayor made in 2001 have generated a growing firestorm, and the White House decided today it was time to respond. The President acknowledging for the first time that the judge probably wishes she had used other words, but he also strongly defended his nominee. Here is the President with NBCs Brian Williams in an exclusive interview.
BRIAN WILLIAMS, TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: This is the quote: “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.” It's your judgment -- perhaps having talked to the judge -- that, as we say, that's one of those she'd rather have back if she had it to re-do?
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I'm sure she would have re-stated it. But if you look at the entire sweep of the essay that she wrote, what's clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through that will make her a good judge. And, you know, she was pointing out in that same essay that it was nine white males who passed down Brown versus Board of Education, which is partly responsible for me sitting here. So that's hardly the kind of statement that would indicate that she subscribes to identity politics. In fact, what she really subscribes to is the exact opposite, which is the sense that all of us have life experiences and struggles and part of the job of a justice on the Supreme Court, or any judge, is to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes, to be able to understand the nature of the case and how it has an impact on people's ordinary, day-to-day lives, and so her as a Latina woman, part of her job is going to be to listen to the farmer in Iowa and, you know, if he's upset about a farm regulation, and being able to understand how hard it is to farm and what that means and to be able to incorporate that into her decision making. It means that she has an understanding of what a corporate CEO might be thinking, and she has those experiences as well having worked as a corporate litigator. That breadth of experience, that knowledge of how the world works is part of what we want for a justice who's going to be effective. And I think that when she's appearing before the Senate committee in her confirmation process, I think all of this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is.
GUTHRIE: Well as we mentioned, the judge's statement really generated some heated rhetoric on the right. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich called her a racist. But some other Republican leaders today expressed some unease with that racially-charged rhetoric, saying she should be judged on her judicial philosophy, on her record alone. Meanwhile, the judge goes to Capitol Hill next week starting the confirmation process in earnest when she meets with key Senators there.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
That is how to disqualify jurors
May 29, 2009 - 20:25 ET by sevenJurors can't get by with that. White guys also can't speak with such shocking intolerance.
...."all men are created equal" How much more equal can she be?
Obama talks about life
May 29, 2009 - 20:49 ET by GregEObama talks about life experiences and has been talking about empathy, then last week.........
“When Sonia Sotomayor ascends those marble steps to assume her seat on the
highest court of the land,” Mr. Obama said as he introduced her in the East Room
of the White House, “America will have taken another important step towards
realizing the ideal that is etched above its entrance: Equal justice under the
law.”
......he mentions Equal justice under the law, which complete contradicts himself and of course no one calls him on it or asks him to explain both together. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Talking out of both sides of his mouth as usual, and his lemmings sop it up like gravy on a biscuit.
Steele was subbing for Bill Bennet this morning
May 29, 2009 - 23:26 ET by RESTLESS 1And he had on guest Mike Massey (SP?) who summed it up best I think. He said that you can't have it both ways. You can't say that the color of your skin has kept you back, then use the color of your skin to get ahead. Nail on the head there.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
<sound of duct tape ripping off roll>
May 29, 2009 - 20:37 ET by motherbeltand so her as a Latina woman, part of her job is going to be to listen
to the farmer in Iowa and, you know, if he's upset about a farm
regulation, and being able to understand how hard it is to farm and
what that means and to be able to incorporate that into her decision
making.....President Obama
One has to be a Latina to understand farming????
How does he get away with saying stuff like this????
The guy is clueless without his teleprompter!
He just riffs off whatever, off the top of his head, and the idiot across from him nods as if he's hearing the wisdom of Plato or Socrates, for crying out loud!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Tonight's Guest: Plato
May 29, 2009 - 20:37 ET by Sergeant ROCKlol.. no kidding. Isn't that racist too? Farming? What, picking oranges?
Maybe Obama has some insight about a janitor's plight in Iowa as well?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
He's saying that part of her
May 29, 2009 - 20:39 ET by balboaHe's saying that part of her job will be to understand people from other ways of life. As a Latina, she'll have to understand the plight of a Iowa farmer.
The Constitution is to be
May 29, 2009 - 20:51 ET by GregEThe Constitution is to be applied equally without regard to plight. Neither empathy, nor malice. Equal justice.
Mr. Obama said as he introduced her in the East Room of the White House, “America will have taken another important step towards realizing the ideal that is etched above its entrance: Equal justice under the law.”
Too bad that he doesn't actually believe what he said there, but he does know it sounds really good.
Obama's the kind of Democratic lying hack President....
June 1, 2009 - 12:42 ET by Tailgunner...who can give a press conference on Death Row announcing in front of a dozen cameras that he is granting a 'stay of execution' on behalf of a condemned murderer...
...while throwing the switch on the electric chair.
And, as the odor of burning flesh permeates the chamber, the MSM will, as one, praise Obama for His 'mercy'.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Don't forget, this was in
May 29, 2009 - 20:50 ET by motherbeltDon't forget, this was in answer to the question about her saying that as a Latina she would come to a better conclusion because of the "richness" of her experience.
So what is it about her "rich" experience that gives her a better grasp of farming than, say, a white male lawyer from Boston?
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Exactly. Obama in that
May 29, 2009 - 20:59 ET by GregEExactly.
Obama in that interview: "....what's clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give
her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through
that will make her a good judge."
Obama when asked by Rick Warren, which Supreme Court justice he would not have nominated: "....I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas."
See the "Early Life and Education" section of this:
http://en.wikipedia....
You're full of crap, Mr. Obama.
It is possible to like one
May 29, 2009 - 21:04 ET by balboaIt is possible to like one person over another, even though they come from similar circumstances.
Similar circumstances????
May 29, 2009 - 21:13 ET by motherbeltSimilar circumstances???? Surely you jest!
Thomas' family worked for pennies a day! He not only didn't have an encyclopedia, that Sotomayor brags that her mother scrimped to buy, but he couldn't even go into the library!!
Their house burned down and he got sent to live with his grandfather!
No one thought Justice Thomas's story was "compelling" but you just keep beating that dead horse, bal.
I really hate it when I forget my self-imposed rule against responding to you.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
As usual, bal misses the
May 29, 2009 - 21:17 ET by HockeyKidAs usual, bal misses the point entirely, even while reiterating it.
Nominations to the bench have nothing to do with who is LIKED, bal. That's the whole problem--Uhbama does everything according to who he likes and/or wants something from. It's called corruption, Chicago style.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
GMTA, Hockeykid....
May 29, 2009 - 21:28 ET by motherbeltLook at the subject line of my post below....LOL
Not that it takes X-ray vision to see through balboa...
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
MB, I never said anything
May 30, 2009 - 10:26 ET by balboaMB, I never said anything about compelling lives. They both grew up under less than ideal circumstances. I made no claim about who had it harder.
That's right, bal. You
May 30, 2009 - 10:59 ET by motherbeltThat's right, bal. You made no claim about who had it harder, because in your mind their circumstances were "similar."
As usual, you are backtracking and trying to change the meaning of what you clearly said.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpso
MB, I'm not backtracking.
May 31, 2009 - 12:02 ET by balboaMB, I'm not backtracking. They were similar circumstances.
Come on,
May 29, 2009 - 21:12 ET by UpNorthCome on, Bal, you know his quote is nonsense. Assuming the "regulation" was passed by congress, the farmer's Rep or Senator's office would/could explain a farming regulation to the farmer. Nothing like that would get near SCOTUS.
And if it's a matter of law, which it should be, the "plight of an Iowa farmer" should not make any difference to the law itself.
And I hope that Williams has finally gotten up off his knees.
and so her as a Latina woman, part of her job is going to be to listen
to the farmer in Iowa and, you know, if he's upset about a farm
regulation, and being able to understand how hard it is to farm and
what that means and to be able to incorporate that into her decision
making.....President Obama
If the law is so cut and
May 29, 2009 - 21:13 ET by balboaIf the law is so cut and dry, then why do we even need judges? What are all these lawyers doing then? You guys act like laws are never challenged, that opinions never differ on anything dealing with the law.
I was
May 29, 2009 - 21:18 ET by UpNorthaddressing his quote, which was about a "regulation". I asked if you could recognize that his reasoning, in that instance alone, was nonsense, and he should have been called on it? That was the point. Never said the law was cut and dried or that laws are never challenged.
Another bal-bait red
May 29, 2009 - 21:19 ET by HockeyKidAnother bal-bait red herring. You just can't help yourself, can you?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Once again, balboa misses the point.
May 29, 2009 - 21:21 ET by motherbeltIt's a judge's job to make rulings on points of law when the intent of a laws is disputed. Judges are not supposed overturn laws or the constitution, as was done in Kelo, because they want a different outcome than was intended.
You know what, bal...you need to suck it up and read this column by Ann Coulter. It's entitled
"I Feel Your Pain. Not Theirs. Yours."
It's a good explanation of why judges can't rule based on empathy. Which side should a judge have empathy FOR?
That's why they're supposed to rule on the LAW!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Excellent article, thanks!
May 29, 2009 - 21:27 ET by GregEExcellent article, thanks!
De nada....Coulter's way
May 29, 2009 - 21:31 ET by motherbeltDe nada....Coulter's way with words just cracks me up.
I especially liked her reference to the case "One Bad Apple vs. The Rest of the Barrel" and the unpublished judicial opinion "Talk To The Hand."
LOL
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
MB
May 29, 2009 - 23:31 ET by RESTLESS 1I read that article at TownHall. It was great, and I loved the quotes you posted. Especially the "talk to the hand". LOL.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
And I think that what
May 29, 2009 - 22:51 ET by balboaAnd I think that what Sotomayor is saying is that life experience will affect to _some_ degree anyone's ruling on points of law or interpreting law.
No, that's NOT what she's saying. Quit defending this ****.
May 29, 2009 - 23:16 ET by Tailgunner"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.”
"In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nyt-posts-sotomayors-racist-views
Summed up: A Latina woman will probably be a better judge than a white male.
'Some degree' my ***.
This woman managed to combine racism and sexism in one paragraph. Maybe she will make a good judge.
If not, a good Democratic politician.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Balboa, the judges are supposed to uphold and enforce the intent
May 29, 2009 - 22:43 ET by pahuberof the law.
"If the law is so cut and dry, then why do we even need judges?"
Like dude...at a trial....
"... judges are supposed to
May 29, 2009 - 22:45 ET by NL207"... judges are supposed to uphold and enforce the law."
No. The above are the functions of the Executive.
Judges are supposed to apply and interpret the law.
Care to speculate on which branch is supposed to make law and set domestic policy?
"uphold and enforce the
May 29, 2009 - 23:08 ET by GregE"uphold and enforce the law......The above are the functions of the Executive."
And yet for generations, presidents have MADE law through executive order, taking their own partial role as legislative branch.
He musta jumped on that like a dog in heat. After I posted that
May 29, 2009 - 23:56 ET by pahuberI saw it and corrected it...
And you are totally correct about the Executive Branch.
Yes you are correct. I made the correction shortly after the
May 30, 2009 - 14:31 ET by pahuberpost.
"No. The above are the functions of the Executive."
Nope. Law enforcement officials do this.
"Care to speculate on which branch is supposed to make law and set domestic policy?"
Congressional branch. Do I win a prize?
How 'empathetic' was Sotomayor to Frank Ricci?
May 29, 2009 - 22:59 ET by TailgunnerRicci was so dyslexic that, according to Charles Krauthammer (no stranger himself to disability), he "spent $1,000 on books, quit his second job so he could study eight to 13 hours a day, and, because of his dyslexia, hired someone to read him the material."
He passed the test and qualified for promotion for lieutenant.
But for the sole reason that not enough African-Americans had passed, the test results were thrown out and no one was promoted.
Ricci and others sued.
Sotomayor's response to the obvious discrimination against qualified white firefighters (and one Hispanic!)?
One unpublished paragraph saying what a great decision another judge made...empty of all substantive meaning and relevance to the case.
A Clinton appointee remarked that the judge as well as Ricci suffered from a learning disability.
Where was Sotomayor's empathy for a disabled white guy who got screwed by reverse discrimination? Nada.
Sotomayor's 'empathy' is reserved for the type of people who couldn't pass the test for fire lieutenant so they pulled the whole structure down on those who worked hard, sacrificed, studied and overcame disabilities and PASSED the damn test!
Empathy, my ***. If you're not on Obama's and Sotomayor's Christmas card list, you're *******.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Well, hey, I don't agree
May 29, 2009 - 23:04 ET by balboaWell, hey, I don't agree with the ruling, but I can see why they ruled that way.
Why did they 'rule that way', Balboa?
May 29, 2009 - 23:24 ET by TailgunnerWhat criteria did they use?
The law?
Empathy?
The freakin horoscope?
That's the problem with liberals. It's always emotion that guides them.
Problem is it isn't always the same emotion.
Kind of makes it difficult when you can't count on those who interpret the law to follow the law in the process.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
I read the ruling, and it
May 30, 2009 - 10:23 ET by balboaI read the ruling, and it appears that they decided to throw out the results because they were afraid they'd be sued under Title VII because no minorities passed the test.
A white guy who busted his *** to make lieutenant...
May 30, 2009 - 12:35 ET by Tailgunner...and overcame real disabilities to pass the test got ****** because the city was afraid of ******* off the African-Americans who COULDN'T pass the test?
Who cares how they phrase it, Balboa? Why should Ricci get punished 'cause blacks couldn't pass a test specifically designed to eliminate racial bias?
This is the bottom line.
The white applicant was qualified for the job but he was not hired because of affirmative action racial quotas.
And Sotomayor upheld racial discrimination in hiring against a qualified white male in favor of unqualified black males.
How's that empathy working out for you, Frank?
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
I'm just telling you what I
May 30, 2009 - 13:05 ET by balboaI'm just telling you what I read.
Why not answer his questions Bal? They deserve an answer from
May 30, 2009 - 14:36 ET by pahuberyou if you are going to be carrying Soto's water. I think he deserves and answer as he has been Gandhi like in his patience with you.
Who cares how they phrase
May 30, 2009 - 21:51 ET by balboaWho cares how they phrase it, Balboa?
No one cares. I'm merely telling you why the city of New Haven first tossed out the results.
Why should Ricci get punished 'cause blacks couldn't pass a test specifically designed to eliminate racial bias?
He shouldn't. It's not fair that New Haven felt they had to throw out the test results to avoid a lawsuit, only to be met with one anyway.
→ That's right bal
May 30, 2009 - 22:04 ET by Cool ArrowNew Haven will have to deal with the ruling on their decision.
Ms. Sotomayor seems to have swatted the case away as she would a gnat, with what seems a considerable disregard for equal protection.
Her words as a latina female don't mesh very well with her belief that her decisions would be superior to those of a white male.
To the contrary, her words seem to point out that given the opportunity, she believes in punishing the petitioners if they don't fit her preset criteria.
Eric Holder's decision on the Black Panthers this week also meshes well with Ms. Sotomayor's stated beliefs.
She decided (I have no way
May 30, 2009 - 22:11 ET by balboaShe decided (I have no way of knowing in what way she swatted away the case) that the city of New Haven was justified in throwing out the results to try and stay in compliance with Title VII. I'm not sure how you can infer the rest.
→ That's one way to see it
May 30, 2009 - 22:30 ET by Cool Arrow"But the city was within its rights to take the steps necessary to avoid liability."
What she and her panel failed to address is that in taking those steps, they denied equal treatment to the firefighters who passed the test.
It was a fixed competition lacking the good faith the firefighters had every right to expect.
I'm pretty sure the test did not clearly state "Blacks Only", but it should have.
It seems flawed in that the
May 30, 2009 - 22:42 ET by balboaIt seems flawed in that the city seemed to take every precaution and there was no pretextual evidence of bias on the part of the department.
Balboa, the issue IS 'bias on the part of the department"!
May 31, 2009 - 02:54 ET by TailgunnerNew Haven could have allowed the test results to stand and summoned up the spine to defend qualified whites and Hispanics against unquestionably unqualified blacks.
Instead they chose the most cowardly and despicable course and betrayed Frank Ricci and everyone else who did everything necessary to qualify for promotion.
This was a tailor-made opportunity for Judge Sotomayor to demonstrate this 'empathy' everyone's crediting her with.
This was the extent of her 'empathy' to Frank Ricci:
"We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below.
In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives.
We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated.
But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim.
To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED."
http://www.adversity.net/newhavenfd/appeal-ruling.pdf
First of all, this ruling is total crap.
New Haven was not in a position of 'having no good alternatives'. Title VII does not mandate punishment of the qualified in favor of the unqualified.
It would have been entirely reasonable to continue the process and promote Ricci et al as they deserved.
New Haven knew they'd be sued either way. Why not take the honorable course and defend qualified men instead of punish them?
Sotomayor admits that Ricci was treated extremely poorly.
She acknowledges the 'intensive effort' that resulted in 'scoring highly'.
(What in the **** does 'appears' mean? Either Ricci scored highly or he did not.)
Sotomayor had a choice; rule that New Haven promote a qualified white male with a clear disability along with his equally qualified colleagues, or punish the qualified to pacify the unqualified.
She should have chosen the first option. Instead she chose to punish Ricci and crew all over again.
"Empathy", anyone? Sounds more like judicial vindictiveness to me.
Sotomayor's 'empathy' was for the unqualified blacks who would have had their feelings hurt for not being promoted.
And when she's seated as an Associate Justice, she'll be able to screw hundreds of thousands of white males in favor of minorities and women.
Payback. Coming to a town, or a car dealership, or a business, or a bank, or a talk radio station near you.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Tailgunner...
May 30, 2009 - 16:05 ET by Georgia GirlI agree with you completely. You know, this really upsets me. I feel this is really unjust. I think it is nothing but wrong, wrong, wrong for a judge to take "circumstances" into account when applying the law, and there is more than enough language (on her part) that others should feel leery that she will be an activist. Maybe she won't be -- but she has said enough that it's not idiotic to think she will. And for those who feel that others are "interpreting" her incorrectly, I'm sorry but shouldn't judges have a way with words? Shouldn't they understand the value of them and be able to communicate clearly and effectively?
But my main point is that we're talking about real fairness here -- and in this story of the firefighters taking the test for promotion, there is one person who has done everything possible to accept standards & expect nothing special for himself -- and that is the firefighter. The firefighter did his part to do everything he could to learn the material and do his very best job on the test. With his learning disability, who is to say that test was not still slanted against him, due to his disability? Disabilities affect all kinds of areas, and I don't think anybody can convincingly argue that someone with his kind of disability is better off (more "advantaged") taking that test than an African American. But did he ask that somebody make some sort of dispensation for him because of his special situation? No. He worked his butt off and just took the test. I bet he was more than willing to accept the outcome. He has probably done that all his life.
My son has an autistic spectrum disorder, and it's my judgement that, generally speaking, he's had to work his butt off twice as much as the "typical" child. First, picture being born with an inability to read other people's facial expressions or body language -- and having to learn all that and practice it constantly, instead of picking up on it naturally. Then add in having to also learn social skills that others pick up on through trial and error -- but he must be taught all this -- in the same sense somebody else takes a class to learn a foreign language. Add in lack of coordination, sensory sensitivitites and a host of other things -- and that's my son. Except that he also is blessed with being handsome, kind, bright, sweet, friendly and full of resilence and talents. He's a spectacular person, but life has not been easy for him. I've never heard him complain about unfairness.
Tomorrow, he will be the only beginner on stage to perform a guitar solo -- along with other advanced students...and that is due to the fact that he worked his butt off to get there. He was given a special invite because of his performance level -- and we would not have expected him to be invited if he was not up to that level. Although very smart, he also has had to decode a lot to be able to do well academically, and his Iowa Basics scores each year show him soaring high -- and I won't even begin to tell you how much he had to practice to not darken those ovals out of order -- all he had to go through to interpret the questions accurately -- and how he had to learn to manage time and a host of other issues -- just to take that test each year and do so well. When it comes to getting into colleges, he will take the SAT and ACT --without any special allowances -- in order to be able to get into a college. We would not expect anybody to give him a break because of this disability he was born with -- fair is fair, and he has to be held to the same standard as everybody else who has to take the ACT and SAT to get into college. It's a score, and though it doesn't paint the whole picture of intelligence or allow for special difficulties someone may have in taking it -- it must be taken and accepted as a concrete score. As parents, we do everything we can to help our son progress and continue to overcome his disability, but we don't expect special treatment.
Maybe the color issue and a disability are not the exact same thing, and many can reasonably argue that point. But I think there is enough of an "I expect special treatment or a handout because life has been unfair to me" or "I expect no special treatment and know I will have to earn what I get" aspect that they're fairly decent cases to compare. And I think it also explains how the firefighter who worked his butt off and performed well should not have been held back because somebody felt an entire group of people deserved a "leg up" more than he does. There are objective standards, and the only fair thing is that all adhere to them. If blacks could not score well on the test because there were questions that they felt differed from their own environment or opportunity growing up...well, I will just say that my son has had to learn to decipher a world and learn to understand it much differently than most have to -- so I would think others could do that as well, through practice tests or learning terminology or whatever else it was that could trip them up. I have oodles of compassion for people who have been hurt or who are different, but I disagree with how those people can be helped.
That's all I have to say. Sorry that was so long. I'm off my soap box. :)
You should be very proud of your son...
May 31, 2009 - 03:19 ET by Tailgunner...and he should be proud of himself too.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Tailgunner...
May 31, 2009 - 20:09 ET by Georgia GirlThanks so much. You have no idea how much that means to me.
We're back from his solo performance. Nobody will ever know how much this kid had to handle and flow with today to do such a fantastic job. I'm a proud mama, sorry. ;) This could not have been a more pressurized situation. I felt like throwing up (of course, I hid that), but our son was so strong. At the end of the piece, his pick slipped out of his fingers for a minute, so he had about 5 last notes to play and last track. He paused and played and held the last note -- and then burst out with a huge smile. The audience loved him...they didn't have any idea what special situation he has, but he was the very first to play and the only one who was playing with no backup -- and the most beginner student there -- who had never played before & just was so tough yet sweet about it. So many came up to him and told him what a great job he did, and everybody said it was no biggie about the ending -- much more accomplished and longer-playing guitarists told him every single mistake they made today. God bless 'em! It gave me a renewed hope in the goodness of people.
For his part, our kiddo told me: "Gosh, I wish I wouldn't have messed up the end. That is the last time I try a new pick right before performing. I thought the green one would be fun to try out today, but it's the old grey for me from now on!" ^_^I told him I was even more proud of him that he mixed up the end and came through like such a trouper than anything! It was his attitude and can-do nature that so amazed me.
I'm sorry if this is a ramble. The music played tonight was of all varieties...and the last piece was Led Zeppelin. I gotta say, I enjoyed the performances a lot, but I'd like to never hear a band playing Zeppelin again -- my head is killing me! LOL. I'm pretty young, but I'd say some serious hearing damage is possible. ;)
The last time I sang in public and missed a couple of words...
May 31, 2009 - 23:53 ET by Tailgunner...I stopped and went back and sat down. Just quit.
You really should be proud of your son.
I strongly believe based on what you've told me that your son may not be as 'disabled' as you've been told.
No question, there are challenges, but little things like stage presence and grace under pressure are hints of much greater qualities.
If he internalizes whatever 'label' he is given, the motivation to succeed you've described may dry up.
There's a saying about the bumblebee who by every law of physics is unable to fly. But since the bumblebee is ignorant of the laws of physics...he goes ahead and flies anyway.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
A very, very beautiful
June 1, 2009 - 00:00 ET by JerA very, very beautiful post, Tailgunner.
Jer
Don't strain yourself patting me on the back.
June 1, 2009 - 12:08 ET by TailgunnerAll I'm saying is don't do what I've done.
(Thank you. : )
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Tailgunner...
June 1, 2009 - 12:30 ET by Georgia GirlNope. Sorry. Jer should be patting you on the back. You still end up being humble and wise -- hence, a good example -- as much as you try to make yourself a bad example! ;)
Tailgunner...and Jer
June 1, 2009 - 03:44 ET by Georgia GirlThat's so wise of you. From early on we let him know (doctor's advice) the general idea of why he had difficulties in certain areas, and he accepted it really well. We put it to him like there may be some things that may take more effort to learn to do, but he absolutely can work on them and get there. He has had such a good attitude and just considers that he had different areas than other people to work on -- but it's (not yet, anyway) dampened his enthusiasm or made him feel sorry for himself, thank heaven! He's someone who really knows who he is, and we just keep helping him on his journey -- he does all the rest! Thankfully, he has a really good sense of humor and self-esteem, and we never want to crush that by making his condition define who he IS, if that makes any sense. He is so much more than this condition!
I think that "disability" is not the right word for our son, I agree (or often, for many kids)...and though we didn't present it that way to him, I wish I could think of a better word. I know we told him he had some weaknesses that he could work on to continue to progress, and then -- our typical kiddo - he wanted the exact terminology, so we supplied it and then he asked more questions about it...and he just kind of shrugged and said, "Okay, that doesn't sound so bad. I can work on those things."
What a kid! I'm not as tough as he is...that is obvious, since -- if not for the love I have for my son -- I would have been tempted to hide out in the bathroom while he played at this thing yesterday. Talk about stress! I can't tell you how scared I was to watch him play, as I just wanted it to go so well for him. And all day with my son, I acted so calm, cool and collected. Right now, I need Cool Arrow's laughing expressing here: "BAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!" I think I'm missing a "W," but close enough.
OK, before someone at NB gives me a comment that says: "You are way off topic -- get your own personal blog, lady!", I will close on this..
Thanks so much for the support and words of wisdom!
My day begins very early, with writing deadlines. I could stand two more hours of sleep. :(
HAPPY POSTING TODAY, EVERYONE. :)
"....I think all of this
May 29, 2009 - 20:40 ET by GregE"....I think all of this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is....."
....to which the obvious followup would be, "for what it is.....so what is it?"
I think you left that part of the interview out of your transcript. Surely Brian Williams asked that.
....Well.....anyway....
....now where the heck did I set my crackpipe?
...now where the heck did I
May 29, 2009 - 20:52 ET by motherbelt...now where the heck did I set my crackpipe?
LOL, Greg!
Follow-up?? Surely you jest!
There job is to do the set-up and then sit back and be suitably awed by His Eloquence.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Don Corleone's advice: mention, don't insist
May 29, 2009 - 20:51 ET by KC MulvilleShould we bet everything on that gotcha quote? I can't help but remember Don Corleone's advice after the deal with Barzini and the Tattaglias. Should the Corleones make a fuss?
I've calmed down about that quote. Sotomayor's comment about Latinas being better than white males must have been foot-in-mouth episode. Having had many such episodes myself, including several recent whoppers, I'm in a forgiving mood. That's why, the more I think about it, I'm less willing to brandish the quote as a weapon. If we allow the liberal media (and Obama behind the scenes) to anchor all criticism to that single, stupid quote, they can dismiss us with a wave and a smile.
However, let's make no mistake: for all the debris and countermeasures the media is throwing ahead of her, there's no doubt that Sotomayor is from the school of "substantive due process" and the "living Constitution." What's important, then, is to draw that out. Show the American people what they're getting with that philosophy, i.e., letting liberal judges run amok.
Her other foot-in-mouth
May 29, 2009 - 21:32 ET by motherbeltHer other foot-in-mouth episode (that we know of ) was the "Appeals Court is where policy is made" comment, which quickly segued into (paraphrasing) I know, I know, we don't make policy; we shouldn't make policy, (nudge, nudge, wink, wink )
And you know, KC, no one ever "blurts out" a lie.
Myself, I believe they were both slips....of the Freudian kind.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Agreed, but
May 29, 2009 - 22:29 ET by KC MulvilleReality is that she believes these things, primarily because she buys into the living Constitution crap. Still, quotes can be explained away.
Don't you think, though, that everyone already knows how this is going to play out? The media isn't going to expose her, and the GOP ain't got the votes. So, the only question is whether the GOP is going to take any damage. That's why, I argue, they should make the case clearly that she (and Obama) buys into the living Constitution fraud. Make it clear, but without screaming. Mention, don't insist.
You see, secretly, I'm betting that the damage to her and Obama has already been done. No one really believes that Obama and Sotomayor are being completely honest and transparent, and we all see the gamesmanship. This is a kabuki dance where everyone knows the whole story, and the suspense is gone. They've already exposed themselves as liberals, and that's damage enough.
She SAID it because she BELIEVES it.
May 29, 2009 - 22:16 ET by TailgunnerDemocrats never forgive anything a Republican says. Never.
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for your words?
Sotomayor doesn't even have the class to apologize. That would require that she confront and acknowledge her racist, sexist and bigoted words.
Sotomayor would have to admit that she proudly legislates from the bench.
But as usual, Dems are downplaying, dismissing and even trying to deny her remarks.
Sotomayor is an incompetent political hack who's been overruled two out of three times by the very court Obama wants to appoint her to.
In fact, if Republicans can delay this process, the Supreme Court may begin deliberations on the Ricci case.
How delicious would it be if, while the GOP put Frank Ricci on the witness chair, the SCOTUS struck down Sotomayor's incompetent, racially biased ruling?
Even if Sotomayor were eventually confirmed, she would be damaged goods to Obama and Democrats, her reputation as a jurist permanently tarnished and her objectivity a joke.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Wow, Bri-bri, nice piece of
May 29, 2009 - 21:23 ET by HockeyKidWow, Bri-bri, nice piece of hard-hitting journalism! Do you think you can hold back from genuflecting until after the cameras are off?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
La Raza is a much bigger problem
May 29, 2009 - 21:40 ET by slickwillie2001I have much more of a problem with her membership in the racist La Raza that these 23 words. Even though the 23 words were part of a speech prepared in advance, her membership in La Raza was over a long period of time and involved a personal commitment, and the nature of La Raza is no secret.
Barry And The Press Will Fix It
May 29, 2009 - 21:59 ET by rammingspeedPeople have been wondering when Sonia is going to be cued up to say herself that she'd like to take those words back. That'll be interesting, because Brian Williams et al will be setting the stage and giving her the cover she needs so she can say it quickly and then run and hide. Of course, the MSM will applaud loudly for two seconds and then say, "Shut up, dissenters. We don't care what you think." It's a good thing we don't have a corrupt news media in America. It's a good thing we don't have a president who takes full advantage of that corruption.
I'll bet Trent Lott would rather 'have a few things back', too.
May 29, 2009 - 22:03 ET by TailgunnerAnd Lott didn't even say anything wrong.
Democrats twisted, distorted, assumed, and projected every single innocuous word Lott said into some cryptic coded racial smear.
The MSM took the steaming pile of crap the Dems served up and obediently flung it against the wall for weeks until spineless GOPers finally threw Trent to the hyenas.
I'm sorry. Sotomayor does not get a pass for her blatantly racist and sexist pronouncements or her intent, supported by her record of incompetence and bias, to ignore the law in favor of making it.
The GOP must fight this nomination as one party. Sure they're outnumbered. Sure they might probably lose, barring a miracle.
But don't forget the effect the Battle of the Alamo had on Texans who were revolting against the Mexican Army. What seemed like a humiliating defeat in battle was turned into victory in the war.
Remember Sotomayor!!
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
"words mean
May 29, 2009 - 22:23 ET by TN Mom"words mean something"
Barack Obama, September 2008
'she didn't mean it'
Barack Obama, May 2009
anyone else concerned?
May 30, 2009 - 02:59 ET by i was just thinkingSorry, Mr. Prezzydent, but I have to be a little bit concerned with the idea of a Supreme Court justice who can't say what she really means. Should make for some interesting readings when she writes her opinions.
NBC is for wimps only.
May 29, 2009 - 22:45 ET by TN MomA better question for NBC's Brian Williams to ask the President would be:
Knowing Sotomayor's statement would be seen as racist, why did he choose her?
Is Brian Williams a journalist?
May 30, 2009 - 05:04 ET by Captain KirockAfter watching him play slow-pitch softball with Obama tonight, one has to wonder.
Something the DNC would like to have back
May 29, 2009 - 23:47 ET by katainkenta little blast from the past regarding Miguel Estrada. Courtesy Mark Levin.
___________________________________________
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984
Ain't Lexis/Nexis great????
May 30, 2009 - 05:57 ET by motherbeltAin't Lexis/Nexis great????
These idiots think their words go into the black hole.
No longer does it take weeks of work by half a dozen aids to go through microfiche to find these things.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
That's great. Thanks for
May 30, 2009 - 15:38 ET by GregEThat's great. Thanks for posting.
More centrist than opponents thought?
May 30, 2009 - 00:00 ET by ArminiusDon't fall for this folks. If Sotomayor were truly a centrist, NAACP, NARAL, People for the American Way, and other far-left group would not be applauding her nomination.
And isn't it interesting after liberals and the media have spent all this time making conservatism sound evil and passe, they're now presenting Sotomayor as conservative in some cases and implying that that is a virtue?
TED BAXTER ALERT!!
May 30, 2009 - 03:45 ET by SgthulkaBrian W. is on.
Someone needs to call O's bluff on this
May 30, 2009 - 06:12 ET by danebramageBullspit. That is exactly the kind of statement that would indicate that she subscribes to identity politics. She's suggesting that Brown v. Board of Education was decided on the basis of empathy, rather than the law, whether that decision came from nine white men or one brown woman.
Brown v. Board of Education represented a conflict between the doctrine of states' rights, which derives from the founding, and the modern doctrine of civil rights, which derives from the 14th Amendment and the Civil War. It was and is a thorny legal issue, but it is a legal issue. There have been serious ramifications for American liberty, not all of them positive by any means, in the destruction of states' rights that BvBoE wrought and the leftist interpretation of the Constitution that it helped to permanently cement in our legal system. Sotomayor's approving suggestion that this occurred simply due to the whim and 'druthers of a tiny cabal of men ought to both anger every American and send up a flurry of red flags regarding her nomination.
Life experiences are all she has used now
May 30, 2009 - 10:15 ET by TheHistorianGuess what? Her "life experiences" have caused her to be reversed by the Supremes about 3 out of 5 times, one by an 8-0 ruling (http://www.newsweek....).
I guess she is like Obama the Constitutional scholar as never having read the doggone thing.
There is a rather interesting discussion out there that she has violated the judicial canon of ethics. For a link, go to http://www.marklevin... (starts about 33 minutes in).
How is this hope and change thing working out for you libs?
"What experience and history teach is
this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history,
or acted on principles deduced from it."
G. W. F. Hegel
Compelling?
May 30, 2009 - 13:25 ET by slickwillie2001I would consider Sotomayor's life story more 'compelling' if she was a poor white boy from flyover country that did not benefit throughout their life from affirmative action, from getting scholarships to getting into the colleges that she got into and getting the grades that she did from those colleges. She benefitted from affirmative action in her early jobs as well, and likely in her performance reviews at those jobs.
A poor white boy with the same SAT scores that Sotomayor had would not have had a hope in hell of getting into Princeton or Yale. We have to drop this antiquated notion that folks like Sotomayor are disadvantaged, at least beyond grade school. The truth is that they are born with an advantage in higher education and hiring.
What were Sotomayor's SAT
May 30, 2009 - 13:34 ET by balboaWhat were Sotomayor's SAT scores?
While she may have had an edge in getting in, you simply do not graduate with the honors she did if you aren't very intelligent.
Good luck finding those. We
May 30, 2009 - 13:38 ET by Jack BauerGood luck finding those. We still don't know what the Dear Leader scored in his SATs.
And he's President. Apparently.
Let me ask you a simple
May 30, 2009 - 13:56 ET by mandrakeLet me ask you a simple question. In what ways has your life changed since the "Dear Leader" took office?
I get this question from
May 30, 2009 - 20:59 ET by GregEI get this question from Dear Leader's troops too. Must be a memo out somewhere, where if I don't have a direct answer on how Dear Leader has changed my life for the worse, personally, then I have no complaint and Dear Leader continues to be the perfect human. The question carries and irrelevant implication.
I don't make a million dollars a year income either, yet I am against taxing the crap out of those that do. I personally don't drink sugared drinks such as Colas, but I am against the government wanting to put a direct tax on those things. Just because something doesn't effect me personally and directly is irrelevant in the realm of princple.
being egocentric is supposed to fade
May 30, 2009 - 21:57 ET by katainkentbeing egocentric is supposed to fade when you get out of your childhood years. Five year olds focus only on themselves.
___________________________________________
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984
Brilliant doesn't equate to
May 30, 2009 - 13:59 ET by Conservative VoiceBrilliant doesn't equate to wise or righteous. President Clinton is very bright...wise not so much.
Intelligence does not equal integrity.
May 31, 2009 - 03:10 ET by TailgunnerNor, apparently, does intelligence equal opportunity in her eyes.
NOLO PUGNARE ME OCCIDERE
Actually, at some
May 31, 2009 - 22:34 ET by Radical1979Actually, at some universities minorities grades are inflated over those of white students. For example, and 85% for a minority is an A, but a B for a white student.
I also have my doubts about the curriculums of some of these institutions. I say this as a parent of a high school junior currently looking at colleges. I want to be sure she's getting and education, not and indoctrination. Luckily, she's been spotting attempts at mind control in her textbooks, so she can filter out the b.s.
→ That's it?
May 30, 2009 - 14:14 ET by Cool Arrow“all of this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is.” -Barack Obama
That's it Mr President? She declares her ability to judge as better than a white man, and you tell us we're the ones spewing?
You, Mr. President, are the one regurgitating bile.
And the nuance isn't lost on me that when asked if she'd like a re-do, you answered. “I'm sure she would have re-stated it”
"Re-stating" is a reiteration of the same comment. No freudian slip there.
So I guess this is that dialogue on race you promised us?
CA.. Yeah...here's some
May 30, 2009 - 16:02 ET by bigtimerCA..
Yeah...here's some more too.
I can't believe this is barely covered at all.
It's maddening...talk about double-standards toboot...could you imagine if had been members of the KKK, what the msm would be doing right about now...especially if this had been a republican president and his JD?
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
→ Absolutely bt
May 30, 2009 - 16:40 ET by Cool ArrowThat's a little message from Eric Holder that it's payback time, and the ballot box will be controlled by "any means necessary".
Seems Holder has a new outlook on voter intimidation now that he's the one that's got the dogs.
Cool... Yep...this is all
May 30, 2009 - 16:46 ET by bigtimerCool...
Yep...this is all outrageous.
Plus, they have control of the Census now and of course ACORN and their involvement goes without saying in all of this too.
I am very worried about the mid-term elections, let alone the 2012 Presidential election...moreso now than I have ever been.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
As usual...the msm circling
May 30, 2009 - 15:58 ET by bigtimerAs usual...the msm circling the wagons for O.
Aren't people of seeing Obama everywhere all day long.
I am...I can barely take him or his blathering tripe anymore.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart