Your quote:,
"Racism is the inherent belief of superiority of one race over another"

Sotomayor's comment:'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.'

Superiority/Superior defintions: Concieted,A person of superior rank, A higher quality

"Better" definitions: More desirable, satisfactory, or effective.
(one's betters) chiefly dated or humorous one's superiors in social class or ability

You are such a hypocritic. This is a rascist comment and you know it. "more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male " SHE is better than a white guy! That IS what she SAID! You know..the White guys on the Supreme Court!

Wait a minute...I know, LET ME apply for Royals job....I'll say because I am White I can make better decisionsthan a Black guy! Of course no one can do as good a job as Royal, but you may or may not get my point (at least after hearing you this am...I think not)

It DOES NOT GET anymore Rascist than this, couple this statement with her entire speech and it clear she is predjudice and bigoted.

YOU,RUSH,SHAWN and NEWT (Well..not so much Newt, I was not surprised when he caved...like he did when he was Speaker)
are rolling over on this one.

She beilieves she is a "higher quality" and more "desirable" person BECAUSE OF HER RACE!.......and you don't see that.

Like I said you are either play'n us or truely blind to you own words.

How many of your grandchildren are on food stamps? How many of your children had babies out of wedlock?

Funny, but I already know the answers. Perhaps you should have stayed in that "area" you referred to and saved the taxpayers here some money.

I agree Neal, by a conservatives definition of racist she is not. However, it needs to be pointed out, for the benefit of liberals, that conservatives are continually branded as racist for much less and so by a liberal definition of racist (based on historical use by liberals), she is a racist.

It appears though that it's OK to be a prejudice, bigot as long as one is not a racist.

It's OK to treat people as slaves as long as you don't call them slaves?

That's the liberal mindset for you.

It doesn't matter... both parties believe that they are superior to the other and constantly slander the other.

Why would anyone want to be a part of either one?

Copyleft, your logic is flawed:
'The Republican Party leaders at the time of the Civil Rights Act were indeed largely on the side of civil rights legislation... as were the northern Democrats. The southern stampede of bigots AWAY from the Democrats and TOWARD the Republicans happened AFTER that bill was passed, as is well documented. The southern bigots never forgave the Dems for siding with the "darkies."'

Why would the racists join the party that voted for Civil rights if they are as racists as you say? Why wouldn't they have stuck by the Dems that voted against it?
I don't know where you are from, but you obviously are not from the south where it is quite obvious to those who live here which party memebers of the KKK identify with. They're called Yellow-dog democrats.

Also, as a Southener, I have to say that 3 generations ago my family had a huge cotton farm with sharecroppers. Today, 3 of my best friends are black, and another is from Iran. Why don't you come down here for a visit and see what the South is really like? We can get you a great room at the Clairmont Hotel - it's an Atlanta landmark!

I read the supposed inflammator speech but couldn't get worked up about it. Meh. If you read the speech, it's pretty benign.

Also, you guys should read some of the analyses on her decision in discrimination claims. She almost always sides against people bringing discrimination claims. Hardy a race warrior.

But there I go again, bringing fact into it.

In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

While the useful idiots are whining about Sotomayor the racist, Obozo is on his knees in front of King Abdullah swearing to make the US a 57-state caliphate. (Obozo said we had 57 states, remember?).

Please, someone hand me a barf bag.

I have to take issue with your statement that republicans crying racism is counter productive. I was born after the civil rights movement, though I grew up in a time where racist views were still widely held and racial separation widely existed. In my short life time that has changed dramatically for the better, in that in the America I grew up in one had the oppurtunity to succeed, or fail, irregardless of race. It seems to me that the majority of Americans identity is post-racial, meaning they don't think of themselves as white, or any other color, specifically, but akin more to the ideals and concepts inherent in an "American" identity and not a racial group. That is unless you are a democrat in which case identity politics is part and parcel of the course. Why is it wrong to exhibit their hypocrisy by highlighting their dedication to identity politics? Why not beat them at their own game, and possibly counter the on-going assault on "America" that the left constantly associates with being racist, white, and violently imperialist? It is almost a demonstrable fact that the people in control of this country have little attachment to the ideals, heritage, and laws and traditions that made this country what it is. Comments, like Michele Obama's, that for the first time in her life she was proud of this country, and the fact that her and Barack Obama attended a racist church for twenty years, yields credence to the fact that alot of the democrats are, in alot of cases, unpatriotic, and in others almost un-American. The fact that Sonia Sotomayer is, or was, a member of La Raza furthers the impression of racism and inherent anti-Americanism in the Obama mentality, that is anathema to adherence to the Constitution that is a prereequisite to being on the Supreme Court. I say fight it anyway you can. The republicans need to just reach down and see if they still have a pair, or not.

osamabama say "I wants her" it's a done deal.

go get some cool adult beverages and sit back and enjoy the show.

nuttin' you can do 'bout it.

we's done fo'!

where my ckeck be at?

Funny how you AGREE with my point and seem to think that proves me wrong.

The Republican Party leaders at the time of the Civil Rights Act were indeed largely on the side of civil rights legislation... as were the northern Democrats. The southern stampede of bigots AWAY from the Democrats and TOWARD the Republicans happened AFTER that bill was passed, as is well documented. The southern bigots never forgave the Dems for siding with the "darkies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Political_repercussions

Have you ever heard, perchance, of Nixon's "southern strategy"?

"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are."
--Nixon strategist, New York Times, May 17, 1970--

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html

Too bad that modern Republicans bear little resemblance to those enlightened Repbulicans of yesteryear, instead pandering to simpleminded bigots.... But I guess you have to appeal to your "base" if you want votes! And the ignorant-bigot vote is squarely in the Republicans' pocket.

Sotomayor's comment is no different than Sen. Trent Lott's statement about Strom Thurmond. It wasn't racist, but the left's reaction cost Lott his Senate Majority Leader position. Why should this be treated differently????

I agree "racism" has been overused in current dialog. Newt backed off on the harsh words today. He linked to the whole speech in his newsletter today and suggested reading it and deciding for yourself.

In my opinion, after reading the whole speech, the whole speech's context is the same theme. She obsesses on the statistics of how many women and minorities were or are judges in different courts at different times in history (and now) and remarks to this Latino/a audience how they are still under-represented and more work needs to be done.

Same old quotas / affirmative action stuff. I hope the SCOTUS spanks her on the Connecticut firefighters' case while confirmation hearings are still ongoing.

Her "policy" statements render her unfit alone, and her overturned decisions don't help any either.

After watching standards go back and forth so many times depending on which benefits the dp at the moment, I'd settle for about ANY standards, if they'd just freakin' stick to them, but they won't.

You're not going to tell me someone that belongs to an ethnic organization named "The National Council of The Race," and says, “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,” isn't at least a racial supremacist. Nor can you tell me such a person would be confirmed for ANY bench if their racial origin was from Northern Europe.

If you really want it dropped, why are you bringing it up here rather than ignoring it? If the left abuses a word until it is meaningless when they use it, does that make it meaningless when someone else uses it accurately? Seems like you are allowing them dictate your vocabulary.

By the way, my biggest problem with that quote from her is that it demonstrates she lacks the judicial temperment and discipline to be impartial and judge if the Constitution is being followed. Her race, and the richness of her ethnic experience should have nothing to do with that, but she says it does. Not fit.

I'd rather be thought a wingnut now(like with carter, clinton, and hussein, than hear later how I sat silent while someone so obviously unfit was elected or confirmed. We could at least be honest and chisel or melt the blindfolds off all those statues of Lady Justice.

Pointing at liberals and calling them "racist" or "anti-Semitic" is fun. The tough part is stifling laughter as these perfect, sentient beings go into shock. I mean, aren't white men/capitalists/conservatives the only evil human beings on Earth???

Strangely enough, it's liberals who so freely use the word, "hate". Given the chance, the liberals I know would probably shoot Dick Cheney.

"even though the KKK was founded by Democrats."

copyleft quote
"True! And all those southern-white bigots abandoned the Democrats and stampeded into the Republican Party with the passage of LBJ's Civil Rights Act. They remain there to this day.

Ignorance of history by the right, yet again...."

You say his statement is True, then accuse him of historical ignorance ??? Sounds a little ignorant to me.

Futher, which party had a higher percent of its party vote for the civil right legislation? From Wikipedia:

The original House version:[9]
• Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
• Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
• Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
• Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
• Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
• Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Seems the 80-82% of Republicans supported it while only 63-69% of democrats did. How is that for a little history?

Neal, I take exception with your statement that Sotomayor has not shown any evidence that she is a racist. Did she not say that she could make better decisions on the bench because she is a Latina? Does that not infer that she believes that her race is superior to others?

How about this speech from 2001 to Berkeley; "A Latina Judge's Voice" - She quoted another woman judge who said that a judge needed to transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Her next line was "Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.... “
So we want to elevate her to be a "final authority"?

I don't know if Sotomayor is a racist or not but the comments she is "alledged" to have made do have some racial/gender bias tones.I'm not that concerned at comments she made because everyone says things that can be taken in ways that they didn't mean.(just listen to Trent Lott or Joe Bidden)I AM concerned about the accusations that she is somehow connected to "LaRaza(?)". If these connections are existing and she is never asked to explain them then our confirmation process sucks. I believe every judge should be intensely GRILLED on EVERY PART of their life and opinions cause we are not just appointing a senator, a governor or even a president,this person has more influence than any of them and is there for life.Almost every time the government has rushed any decision it has been screwed up at best and even disasterous sometimes.

the left love to call conservatives racists, that the Republican party is the party of KKK, even though the KKK was founded by Democrats. Revisionist history by the left once again.

Kudos to Neal for acknowledging this on his show. Same goes for the 'elected' Republican officials that did not engage in the inappropriate charge against Sotomayor. There are fringes on both sides of the political spectrum that seeks to appeal to the 'less informed' by making charges such as these. Hopefully this will go away and we can have a serious vetting of her qualifications.

First off, I agree with your point. Please Republicans- quit whining and get to work.

However, isn't her belief that a "wise Hispanic woman" can automatically make a better judgment than a "white man" the very definition of racist, sexist, and (given the point of her comment) "classist"?

Elections do have consequences. This woman should be confirmed because she has a history of sound legal judgment (regardless of my feelings on the actual opinion). But, assuming she is quoted fairly, she is racist.

I know how much you love to harp on your own pet definition of "racism" in order to argue it out of existence ("It's difference prejudice and bigotry! Use MY DEFINITIONS, people, not YOURS!")... but your effort is doomed to fail here.

Why? Because you know your audience. YOU may not care about race, or abortion, or gays... but your audience of inbred hicks sure does, and you need to pander to that if you want ratings.

So don't bother trying to parse the word "racist" away. The southern-white core of hatred is determined to obsess over race until the day they (thankfully) die out. They'll whine about any non-white-male nominee for ANY position, and insist that the nominee is inherently unqualified despite all evidence to the contrary.

You're not going to change them. Indeed, you shouldn't try; their ignorance serves your purposes as an entertainer to the clueless masses!

I disagree. Republicans were called racists even when they were not in power. They were called racists at every turn. A very few are now speaking up and pointing out who the racists are and what happens?! Republicans beat up on other Republicans for doing what the opposition has been doing for decades. Republicans have unilaterally disarmed themselves and continue on that track. And this morning on the Bill Bennett show they were even saying we shouldn't call Democrats socialist.

Sorry Neil, but there is more at stake when appointing someone to the Supreme Court. I believe you are wrong and simple minded on this subject.