advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Nobody's listening.

ROUND TWO FOR SOTOMAYOR

By
Neal Boortz
@ June 4, 2009 8:23 AM
Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBacks (0)

Ok, so I have been saying for days that all this talk of Sotomayor being a racist is pointless. It is ludicrous, not to mention factually incorrect. It contributes absolutely nothing to the question of her confirmation. Regardless, Sotomayor (presumably at the behest of the White House) felt the need to address her comment that a Latina woman would come to a "better" conclusion than a white male. We went through her explanation yesterday on Nealz Nuze. The White House chalked it up to a misspeak. Either way, the comment isn't racist.

But now here's the test. Yet another quote from Sotomayor has surfaced. This one comes from a speech she made in 1994 and was disclosed to Republican Senators during her confirmation for the Court of Appeals in 1998. Here's the quote:

"Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that "a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of 'wise.' Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

So this time, we don't get the issue of race in the mix, but we do get the issue of gender. As I said, this will be a test. Can the Republicans just cool it already and focus on more important issues when it comes to this nominee, or are they going to take this quote and run with it as well?



0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: ROUND TWO FOR SOTOMAYOR.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/32967

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!


Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • Anti-gunner
    The fact that she is anti-gun, believing that the 2nd amendment does not apply to states is enough for me to not want her appointed to the Supreme Court.

    She also has a history of establishing law through the bench instead of interpreting and upholding the law as her job states she is supposed to do. We don't need activist judges whether they are Liberal or right-wing christians.
  • Sotomayor remark racist?
    The best analysis yet I've read is by a black journalist Thomas Sowell in an article called Out of Context - in 3 parts
  • Beard
    If it weren't for your occasional follies like supporting the seatbelt law and denying obvious sexism/racism, I would read your site a lot more.
  • To Doyle...
    What she's saying there is not racist, she is talk about all women, so she's a feminist, not a racist, you door knocker.
  • Racist
    When you say that calling Sotomayor is a racist is factually incorrect, are you considering the following statement she made:

    “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

    When she starts talking about "inherent physiological differences", are you still going to insist that she's not a racist by definition?

    Come on bud, I know you like to parse words. Parse "inherent physiological differences" for me, and tell me she's not a racist, ok?
  • Why do you want Rep. to cool it?
    Why would you want republicans to 'cool it'?

    One of the main faults of the conservatives is the unwillingness to fight back in public opinion. Don't ask them to chill when they decide to attack.
  • Reading between the lines....
    What all this proves is that inspite of the liberal mantra about "we are all equal", "we have to respect each others views", and all the other "bi-partisan" crap, is that liberals are a bunch of hypocrites. They want you passive and helpless when they swoop in a remove you of the burden of your rights so they can make all your decisions in how you WILL work for the existence of the federal machine. After all, we all agree, right?

    "When thinkers accept those who deny the existence of thinking, as fellow thinkers from a different school of thought – it is they who achieve the destruction of the mind. They grant the enemy’s basic premise, thus granting the sanction of reason to formal dementia. A basic premise is an absolute that permits no co-operation with its antithesis and tolerates no tolerance. In the same manner and for the same reason, a banker may not accept and pass counterfeit money, granting it the sanction, honor and prestige of his bank, just as he may not grant the counterfeiters demand for tolerance of a mere difference of opinion…" Ayn Rand
  • she's in...........
    resistance is futile............

    osamabama wants her, osamabama gets her. praise be to ally.
  • Seems pretty clear to me
    Neal I love your show and I agree with you a lot but I'm having a really hard time figuring out how her statements aren't racist and/or sexist and why you seem to think they aren't. And at the least I think it's a fair point to point out the outrage that would be going on if a white male had made the same statement in regards to his race/gender.
  • Same basic thinking,
    It's just reinforcement of where her thinking is, and that she's unfit for the job. She even makes a habit of expressing it, but hey, no reason to notice or draw conclusions. Just don't be surprised or upset when she confirms she is. I'm of the opinion it's too late already, and my only surprise will come if she isn't confirmed.

    Why haven't we seen more of her 2nd Amendment, and firearm related decisions and thinking? All I've seen is from posters and 2nd Amendment groups.
  • Four points
    1) The comment was of a racist nature in that it expressed prejudice. It is very quaint how Neal thinks that the definition of words was completely formed back when he was in college (or at some other time). The word has come to mean racial prejudice as well as a belief in racial superiority. Perhaps Neal should buy a newer dictionary or do a little research on how lexicographers do their work. Sexist too for the same reason.
    2) Neal must be a trained lawyer to believe that it does not matter that a judge prejudges. What is that preparatory work ? Like a cook cutting vegetables before making soup ?
    3) This comment is not a reason to disqualify Sotomayor but Republicans should use it to point out difference in philosophy. Sotomayor is of a very similar point of view of anybody that Obama will appoint and this comment is a very accurate description of that attitude.
    4) Republicans (and good talk show hosts) should use this to point out the double standard yet again. What Trent Lott said was a lot less damning and yet to most of Sotomayor’s supporters it disqualified him from serving in high government office.
  • bee-otch
    I bet she'd be a fun date....probably gets pissed when you hold the door for her....perfect candidate for a Dirty Sanchez....not that I condone the Dirty Sanchez, mind you....or the Tony Danza, for that matter.
  • round 2
    Well Neal,with this second statement surfacing,it just confirms that Sotomayor feels that she is better and smarter than you,a white male.And you STILL say she isn't showing signs of racism?Try on a coat of sexism,then.Either way,she does not exhibit the "blind justice" she is supposed to expound,unlike the statement attributed to Justice O'Conner.
  • Racist?
    I don't believe she is racist, but her speech was racially bias. Everyone's life experiences help them determine thier decisions in life. But One's race or gender does not give them a right to say they are better at making decisions than someone else.
  • Double Standards
    If a white man had said the reverse of what Sotomayor said, he would instantly be labeled a racist -- even by that dolt Boortz. But because she is neither, her comments get a pass.
  • The Point Is...
    that she bases (or seeks to base) her decisions on things other than the law, specifically the Constitution
  • I don't get it Neal
    While I do agree that she is not RACIST per say, she certainly is a BIGOT. I believe that to be more than a little relevant to the discussion considering that she's going to be voting on all kinds of cases pitting men against women, rich against poor, and Latina!!! against plain ole' white. Justice is supposed to be blind, by her own words she isn't, and that's relevant.
  • Typical Drone
    just mouthing phrases over and over again. "Richness of her experiences" used in speeches 7 years apart. That tells me that she has these thoughts deeply embedded in her fat head. So, the whole "out of context" excuse doesn't fly.
  • Sotomayor
    I was just thinking about the timing of this nomination. Sort of took the trouble Pelosi was getting herself into right out of the news didn't it.
  • Racist will work
    I have to disagree with Neal, if you want to stop this nomination you will have to label her with a negative reference. Neal's argument about going after her based on her philosophy will not sell to the average dumbed down American. Labeling her a racist as the Democrats would do will work. Remember with today's class of voters it doesn't have to be an accurate definition, it just has to sound bad.
  • Racism
    The woman has multiple problems. She says the same stupid stuff over and over. I don't care how she says it, it it still racist and sexist. Anyone who belongs to La Raza is a self confessed racist. Why shouldn't we talk about it??
  • Not very imaginative is she?
    Gee, "richness of her experience" in two different speeches... you'd think someone as educated as Sotomayor appears to be, would be able to come up with another phrase. Maybe "richness of her experience" will work for her like "Yes we can" worked for BHO.
  • What Happened to Just Being a Proud American
    If I hear someone use the word Latina to describe Sotomayor, I am going to lose it. I don't believe the Democrats were concerned with the vast, experience of Latinos, Estrada and Gonzales when Bush appointed them. Ever notice how Democrats bring up race when it's to their advantage? And yet Republicans are the racists. Why can't the GOP pound this into the heads of the uneducated? Dems are the ultimate hypocrites and it bears repeating over and over again. If Republicans want to fix the party, fix that one thing. Dems are much more racist and narrow-minded, Republicans more fair-minded and less color oriented and yet they are constantly called racists. The GOP needs to hammer that principle into every speech, every comment.
  • Silly Racist Charge
    >>And people freaked when W nominated Harriet Myers.<<

    Correct me if I am wrong by didn't people freak on BOTH sides of the political spectrum because they felt she was not qualified? Isn't that why she eventually declined the nomination?
  • Eh?
    Ok, so we have an almost exact copy of her 2001 remarks surface from 1994 revealing this sort of garden variety (for Democrats) bigotry and we AREN'T supposed to run with it?

    I'm having some serious problems figuring out exactly what sort of logic in involved in this. Sounds like Colin Powell logic.
  • Sotomayor
    And people freaked when W nominated Harriet Myers.
    Obama's first SC nominee is a train wreck (who'll be OVERWHELMINGLY confirmed to wonderous, raucous, thunderous media fanfare)
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement