Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘clergy’ Category

>Reverse Discrimination: About Time For Some Justice and Sonja Sotomayor Won’t Bring That

>Reverse discrimination is what Sonja Sotomayor is about.

She discriminated over those dozen or so white (one Latin) firemen who passed all the tests for administrative promotions and were refused. This is outrageous and, alone, should be cause for the U.S. Senate to reject this Obama nominee.

When the firemen went into Judge Sotomayor’s appeals court, she turned them down because there weren’t any black men in that group.

That’s reverse discrimination of the worst kind. When people are prepared, pass a test, and meet every requirement including having the necessary time in position, they should get the promotion regardless of skin color. Most blacks agree with that statement. Discrimination is not the job of the court.

It’s been too long since the Civil War for the U.S. to still be discriminating against white folks just to salve the injustices of the past. All of those people have long since passed on, and you can’t take care of them in their graves.

How long must we put up with this kind of injustice? Well, Barak Obama believes we white people haven’t suffered long enough because now he’s nominated a Latino who is going to rule just as he would if he were on the Supreme Court. George Will wrote about this nominee, Sonja Sotomayor, in this morning’s Washington Post. I wrote a comment, which I’m including below along with several other comments.


dusanotes wrote:
Will’s third graph stops me cold. In their search for how the nominee will rule, Senators must discuss her desire to interpret the Constitution – strictly or loosely – and I think we know that answer.That must include jurisprudential unless we’re no longer a common law country. Doesn’t precedent mean anything? What are senators supposed to do, ask her how the Yankees did last night? No judge should be approved who is there to write new law.Congress does that. To merely judge by asking yourself what’s right and letting the law play catch up is wrong. May as well restrict nominees to members of the clergy. Sotomayor already thinks the High Court’s job is “policy making.”
5/27/2009 8:48:22 AM

Csmith5 wrote:
Yes George Will is a conservative, but he calls it like it is. When Bush nominated Harriett Myers for the SC, he wrote:

I wonder if we will read any op-eds from liberals criticizing Sotomayor’s judical activism or racism from the bench. Doubt it!!! Also, since some of you posters believe the U.S. is no longer a white christian country, can white males get away with making racist comments and use our status as a minority to get away with it, like so many other minorities have in the past? Can we receive some affirmative action? Me personally, I would love the opportunity to become an 8(a) business.

5/27/2009 8:46:37 AM

Georgia10 wrote:
At one time I thought that George Will’s historical references were meaningful. They were certainly amusing diversions. But now it clear that these are just a writer’s technique for avoiding inconvenient facts (for example, Judge Sotomayor’s exceedingly moderate record overall or God forbid, climate change) that might cause an intellectually honest writer to reach different conclusions. Mr. Will you have become sadly irrelevant. Perhaps it is time to concentrate solely on baseball.
5/27/2009 8:46:09 AM

jaysit wrote:
Not unexpectedly, Will shrieks on about “identity” justice, as if “identity politics” only raises its head when minorities or women are involved, and that somehow white men exist in a realm where only pure rule of reason applies. Poppycock. Will lives in a world where to be white is to be the normative, and where everything else is the exotic suspect (in Will’s own bubble, that normative is further restricted to”conservative white male). Is it no wonder that he makes the foolish “what-if” comparison between Sottomayor and Alito. I would reckon that Samuel Alito would need no reason to articulate that his decision-making stems in part from his perspective as a white male (a conservative, Christian with a capital “C,” white male no less). Why would he when Will and much of American society see that as the normative standard? Sottomayor’s only sin here is that of honesty. She knows that ethnicity, gender, race, experience, socio-economic background and, yes, religion affect the way we view the world. Its a pity that Will can’t accept that his own background and sum of his own experiences color his own perspective too. He’d also be advised to look at the record of Scalia who, in spite of the textualist babble he wraps himself in, brings the reasoning and sense of justice of a conservative, Catholic, white male. There is nothing wrong per se to this reality. However, its time that Will and his ilk recognize that they too are perpetrators of the same crimes they accuse others who aren’t of their “tribe.”
5/27/2009 8:45:20 AM

“Take a moment to explain why white men are the problem?”

With pleasure.

Because for 240+ years up to and including today, old rich white men have owned the vast majority of resources, both in America and abroad. That’s who made the decisions regarding those resources, and more importantly, created the power structures – those I mentioned and others – to preserve those power structures. It was rich white men who have, for the last 500 years at least, plundered the rest of the world including this country. That’s an irrefutable fact. Ask a Native American…if you can find one, that is. Ask an unemployed African American male descended from stolen slave labor who can’t get a job because he has a non-violent felony drug conviction on his record. Ask a poor white person who owns the factory from which he just got laid off. Ask anyone other than a rich white man above his or her experience in America, and I guarantee you the stories you hear are not what you learned in class or see in the so-called “liberal” media.

I also have no guilt. I’m descended from a signer of the Declaration of Independence (Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia), Scots-Irish hillbillies of Appalachia, and German and Irish immigrants who mined the coal, farmed the food, drove the trucks, fought the wars, fixed and built the mansions, roads and railroads that allowed rich white men to be where they are today.

It’s not guilt upon which my opinions and observations are founded. It’s the vivid 250-year experience of my ancestors and extended family – and the millions of others just like it – that has brought me to my conclusions. It’s reading history, and not just that presented by rich white men’s power structures. It’s getting out and seeing the rest of the world and listening to what people other than the white moneyed elite think about America and what it means to be American.

Turn off Rush, Hannity and Faux News and open your eyes to the 90% of history and reality you’re willingly disregarding so as to avoid testing the hypotheses that someone else has spoon-fed to you in order to preserve his/her their power and privilege. Leave the comfort of your upper-class suburban/exurban enclave or gated community and get out there to see with your own eyes what has happened and is happening in this country and why.

In other words, wake up.

5/27/2009 8:44:04 AM

Tell us, Mr. Will: Do your GOP talking points arrive each morning with a check? Or are you on a monthly Repuglican stipend?
5/27/2009 8:42:01 AM

George Will, you forget that the conservative justices never side with the individual over the corporation or the defendent over the prosecutor – never. Isn’t this just a different side of the same coin you are accusing the liberals of? I am not a journalist so I only have a personel interest in the truth – you however should have a public responsibility for the truth – a responsibility you seem to ignore consistently. Your truth seems one-sided and only black and white. No grey allowed or desired. It is this authoritarian absolutism that has caused conservatives to be thought of as intellectually bankrupt. If you are unable to understand why it is important for a supreme court nominee to have experiences outside yours then you are as devoid of any true reasoning. Your little history lessons are amusing, do the same research on the reasons for Sotomayor’s ruling in the 2nd circuit (precedence), report it factually and apologize for your misleading all of your readers.

Look into the context of Sotomayor’s “racial” speech with as much zeal as you looked into your history lesson and you may find that a quote taken out of context is misleading your readers.

I love your work on baseball and you are a wonderful historian but it seems to me you have let your conservative beliefs and priveledged upbringing blind you to seeing both sides of issues.

5/27/2009 8:33:44 AM

swanieaz wrote:
Now, if only you would pull the wool from over your eyes.

That wool, is your biased, bigoted, pejorative, condescending way you write – if you call it that!

Go back to jeans ! ! !


5/27/2009 8:33:43 AM

razzl wrote:
Ho hum, another day, another attempt to write an essay around some esoteric old-school movement conservative’s doctrinaire point. If movement conservatives were never willing to admit the validity of taking measures to relieve discrimination against racial, ethnic, or religious minorities when such discrimination was demonstrably systematic and crushing, then why should we worry about Will’s timeline for ending antidiscrimination measures? Those who fended off correcting the wrongs of the past are not at the head of the line to be listened to in the future…
5/27/2009 8:32:37 AM

jsc173 wrote:
Let’s face it. The Democrat party decided years ago that the most reliable, consistent approach to changing policy was control of the federal judiciary.

Presidents can only rule for 8 years. Members of Congress and Senators can rule indefinitely but run the risk of being fired every 2 to 6 years.

Judges, however, are there for life and salting the judiciary with judges who have a predisposition (uh, some would call it a bias) to view certain issues in a manner that runs counter to current judicial opinion can result in change over time.

The legislative process is now too slow and too burdened with back scratching, earmarking and other nasty little unpleasantries.

It’s so much easier to be able to control a handful of important appellate court seats, especially the Supreme Court, if you want to advance your political views.

5/27/2009 8:30:30 AM

Bugs222 wrote:
Will parrots standard GOPosaur talking points. As if the decisions rendered by white guys on the Supreme Court are somehow “objective” and not informed by their life experience. Well, here’s one white dude who is DELIGHTED with Obama’s pick of Sotomayor.
5/27/2009 8:30:14 AM

wdjrel wrote:
This kind of identity based appointment is exactly what I expected from Obama. He is an ACLU Democrat. All the words they use, like the rule of law, is double speak. They are interested only in getting even. I don’t even understand why they go to law school since their goal is to destroy the constitution and replace it with themselves.
5/27/2009 8:29:14 AM

Is it that big of a deal for us to have a few women on the court, and a few more people with dark skin? Are white conservative men the only humans who can dispense justice in this nation?
5/27/2009 8:25:37 AM

klcscott wrote:
“…and members of a particular category can be represented — understood, empathized with — only by persons of the same identity.”

Of course, to support this preconception, Mr. Will must ignore that in the same speech, Ms. Sotomayer went on to say:

“We should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.”

In all fairness, I don’t think George is being so much dishonest, as he is just being lazy, again.

5/27/2009 8:22:33 AM

jjhare wrote:
Weak sauce, Will. What happened to deferring to the Presidents’ wisdom on these decisions? Wasn’t that the whole “elections have consequences” bit?
5/27/2009 8:20:47 AM

longbow651 wrote:
Americanitis wrote:

People like George Will make me laugh. He – like other conservative white males his age – thinks that the country belongs to white christian men of capital….”


A little reverse bigotry from a guilt ridden member of the majority. You seem to have the problem worked out to your satisfaction. I agree the corporate and government minds are not up to par but what I have problem with is your rationale for the reasons. Take a moment to explain why white men are the problem?

5/27/2009 8:19:01 AM

Psalm9_17 wrote:
Why do conservative judges always have to swear that they are unbiased, yet liberal judges while openly biased and praised for it in the mainstream media? Never trust the mainstream liberal media and the judges they support.
5/27/2009 8:18:44 AM

pihto999 wrote:
ull disclosure – I’m a 31-year-old white male. And I for one think that old white men like George have screwed up America quite enough, thank you very much.


Maybe you need to look around, countries not govened by white males. Like Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Kim of North Korea, Chavez of Venezuela. What are other better choices in you racist book?
5/27/2009 8:16:51 AM

pihto999 wrote:
Listen to libtards! They keep talking about what ethnic and religious background the Justices have, NOT how they judge or what their judicial convictions are! Thanks for proving WIll’s point :


And like conventional liberals, she embraces identity politics, including the idea of categorical representation: A person is what his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is, and members of a particular category can be represented — understood, empathized with — only by persons of the same identity


So much for colorblind society! Libs are patronizing racists
5/27/2009 8:11:35 AM

On the surface, Sotomayer looks like an excellent choice; she has great credentials and experiences. However, if the Supreme Court overturns her decision in the New Haven firefighters case for the reasons stated in this article, then Sotomayer is a dangerous activist making social policy from the bench and then it is no wonder that Obama selected her. This needs further investigation but in the end, it is highly unlikely she will be blocked from appoinment. the Reubicans don’t have the votes. Also, the Republicans don’t want to alienate the Hispanic community, ost of whom will not care about Sotomayer’s social activism compared to getting an hispanic on the Supreme Court.
5/27/2009 8:09:08 AM