"I would hope that a wise (Anglo-Saxon man) with the richness of (his) experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a (black female) who hasn’t lived that life,” said (fictitious) Judge Scotomanor

I'm just wondering how many racist statements I could make, and still spin it away. Probably none, as I am a white male. Oh well, different folks, different rules, right?

On a lighter note,

Clay, this may be the best one I've seen. I realize that people(like me) speaking out against racism are the punchline, but I almost fell out of my chair laughing. The girls and I love AFV and the pinata clips make us laugh every time. It's kind of like the three stooges. Of course there is always someone pulling the rope to change the accepted rules in mid-swing. :)

The collateral damage is key here.

If the Gop Senators do the bidding of talk radio stars in labeling Judge Sottomayor a stupid racist with too many temperment issues familiar to women, they'll hear about it in the next election.

Cry foul all you want, but unless there's great substance in the claims, or if she's ultimately confirmed anyway, the Latino (and women's) vote will walk away. That's the difference between her and Bork.

Of course if the Republicans feel they don't need the aforementioned support.... swing away.

I think the cartoon is very appropriate: the ones of the GOP with blinds(including Newt,Dick,Rush) striking at Sotomayor as a racist but hurting mostly their own party. The right-wingers finally realized they were up to their neck in the swamp; and the swamp was full of alligators. It's hilarious to see how they've backed out of this "swamp".

Brilliant! Love your work.

SCOTTYM again brings up what seems to be the most troubling aspect about Sotomayer. I agree with him that the statement is loaded and deserves attention. I think it was a stupid thing to say, no matter the context.

I will say this, though: I must acknowledge that the key word in her speech was "hope".

That she would hope a wise Latina with her upbringing would make different and better choices than another is only natural.

If I were judge, I would hope that my experiences make me a better judge. I think it's only natural for anyone to hope that their hardships make them better.

So, while I don't like the comment, I don't think it rises to the level of racism. I think it is hope that hardship has a purpose.

If this is all the evidence we have to oppose her we're grasping at straws. Her actions on the bench are so much more important than this. I have not seen substantive debate along these lines.

The GOP ha ha ha ha! Zach Wamp Governor ha ha, the "gift that just keeps on giving" the GOP.

Judge Sotomayer is first and foremost a human being. Subject to all of the pitfalls and pratfalls that can often accompany the species.
The statement which has most folks (even I who has nothing in common with people like Rush or former VP Cheney) concerned is one which was taken totally out of context and yet should never have been uttered by a sitting judge.
Yes, it concerns me, but it doesn't make me think she cannot do the job for which she has been nominated. I am more concerned about what she does while sitting 'on the bench', rather than what she may or may not utter while out in the public.
True she is a jurist, and should select her words more carefully, but at the same time she is also a human being and should be allowed the occasional minor faux pas. Or have Mr. Limbaugh and the former VP forgotten how hard they tried to have everyone forget theirs?
Thank you for your time and attention,
Woody

What's in the Pinata? C:-)

Sotomayor is a racist, and I think that it's only right that she be labeled as such. How would she know what the experience of a white man really is as a Latino woman? ASSUMING that her life is tougher, (and as a result somehow superior) is the very spirit of the word racist.

But you definitely have an accepted double standard that still allows for open racism in our society today. Either it's wrong to make race based decisions in life or it isn't. If you can find any excuse to legitimize her stupid statement against the experience of white men, then you give validity to every racist idea in our society. Why was it wrong for southern whites in the past to make decisions based on race, but right for Latinos and African-Americans to do so today?

It seems to me that nothing has really changed in our society on this issue, the players have just changed jerseys and now you have a new home team. Wrong is wrong, and it would be great if we stopped giving special consideration to race altogether. The Republicans are right to point out the inconsistency here, and if they stick to their guns on this issue, they'll be rewarded with victory in the long run.

A similar pinata cartoon ran yesterday in an Oklahoma newspaper.It is comming under fire for prejudicial racial content for depicting a minority woman strung up while white men take a swing at her.

Does The Oklahoman share the same corporate ownership as The Times Free Press?

Two Soto toon's in a week? I think Clay has a crush......

Have any of you gentlemen examined all her court decisions to see if they are racist?

I wouldn't know where to begin.

Basing your decisions on the fact of one sentence made to a Hispanic Group 8 years ago, to emphasize the fact that more WOMEN should use their gifts to get ahead, does not make her a racist. I'd need a face-to-face confrontation and a lot more evidence to come to that conclusion!

Your holding on to a position that is just as racist as you claim her to be, without REAL evidence.

nucanuck,
I missed the OK cartoon uproar. I'm not seeing that Clay's drawing has any racial tones to it, but then I'm notoriously blind to those things. It has to be pretty overt for me to notice.

Clara,
If you google "New Haven Firefighters", you can get a good overview of a racial based case that Sotomayor and Co. tossed out on it's ear with very little reasoning. I believe the Supreme Court will reverse the decision. Not unusual for Sotomayor as better than half of her decisions have been overturned on appeal. If I messed up half the things I do at work, I'm sure that instead of a promotion, I'd get the boot.

Champ1,
Well said.

Thanks SCOTTYM. Clara, how many of these type statements would it take for us to disqualify a white man for saying something similar? Again, either it's wrong or it isn't. SCOTTYM has already given you one example of how it has spilled over into her judgements, and I do know that she feels that judges should legislate from the bench, which is in itself a scary thought. But who cares? After that statement, I'm not interested in anything else she has to say.

Being African-American, I hear what racist minorities say about whites as much as you may hear the same from openly racist whites. The difference between the two is that racist minorities aren't shamed into feeling that they're doing anything wrong. They can always give you some sort of justification for their feelings. I hate it! I think it's bad enough to allow it to happen at all, but to excuse it in a Supreme Court nominee just isn't good enough. Barack has got to be able to do better than that.

The New Haven case will have to be more fully explored. She and the other two judges upheld the lower court ruling that said the city council was justified in discarding the tests.

The key problem for Sotomayer, as I see it, is that she and the other two judges did not offer much explanation, as SCOTTY points out.

I think legal decisions need to be well articulated, based on the law. If there is no law, then you must rely on a judge's judgement of justice. (This is where Obama thinks that a person who has suffered hardships will be superior.)

The problem with this case is that the decision was apparently not well-articulated according to people who opposed the decision, nor was their satisfactory explanation of why this was considered justice.

The judges did note that the city was in compliance with federal law.

SCOTTY, I didn't find the entire ruling on-line. If you find it, let us know.

moonpie,
If you go to the "Ricci v. DeStefano" page on Wikipedia, there is a link to a PDF of the decision in the references section. There isn't much there. I can't get the 2nd Circuits overview page to come up. It is a .gov site, hmmmm.

Thanks SCOTTY,

There is very little infromation there.

Further reading into this story has some unusual findings:

The test was created from interviews with firefighters, trying to learn what was important about the job. 2/3 of the interviewed firefighters were white.

The company then created a 100 question test and a 1000 page study guide, based on the interviews.

After the test was administered, and after the city saw the outcome, they decided the test had a racial disadvantage and shelved it.

The company offered to and did analylize the test for racial bias. The city declined to look at the audit.

There is an indication that the testing company said the test did not have racial bias. Of course, they were an interested party, but still the city didn't seek to prove the test was racially biased through independent channels.

I think the firefighters have a legitimate grievance. I think there should be some proof that the test is not legitimate other than the outcome was embarrassing to blacks.

I don't know what data was presented to the judges, but if I were a judge, I would want fact-driven proof that this test was not valid.

Otherwise, you shouldn't test.

As for Sotomayer's role in this, it was a three person judge panel and the ruling was from the judges as a group and did not elaborate individual thinking. If there was discent, it wasn't voiced.

Has anyone seen info on what Sotomayer said of this ruling? I looked at a few sights and didn't find it.

moonpie,
I agree with you on not being able to find much info. The court docs. themselves are about the only thing I have found that could be considered somewhat authoritative. The non-elaboration in the ruling is what struck me as odd. Generally in a high profile case the judiciary will make a point of explaining the rational for the decision.

Example: Heller vs. DC, page after page of majority opinion explanation(flawed reasoning included), dissenting opinion explanation(flawed reasoning included), and rebuttal from both sides.

The 2nd circuit ruled unanimously and with almost no explanation on the Ricci case. I suppose it is impossible to pick an opinion apart when there isn't much of substance there, and one paragraph isn't much. I believe the final resolution of this case could have far reaching effect on all subsequent cases involving racial bias. Perhaps they were just kicking the can down the road to SCOTUS.

IMO only, and I obviously have a pretty strong opinion about Sotomayor already.

champ1,
I missed this earlier,

"After that statement, I'm not interested in anything else she has to say."

That pretty well sums up my take as well.

Clara,
I missed this as well,

"Your holding on to a position that is just as racist as you claim her to be, without REAL evidence."

I'm not sure how calling someone out as a racist makes me one, as a matter of fact, I posted this in the discussion on Clay's previous Sotomayor toon,

"I could not care less if she were a green skinned, hermaphrodite who grew up under a rock in the Mojave Desert.
So long as she/he has the intellectual/legal chops, and no racial/sexual/class bias issues, have at it."

I'm not the one claiming superiority due to race or sex. I think we are all born with similar innate abilities, regardless of race.

For example, as moonpie pointed out, in the Ricci case the firefighters were all given a 1000 page study guide for the test. I would think the determining issue for scoring on the test is: Did you study? By assuming that blacks could not score as well on the test because they are black, even though they had access to the same study materials, one would be indulging in the "soft racism" of reduced expectations.

I reject that idea. I still believe that given equal preparation the scores would be similar, with the only deviation being for slight innate testing aptitude, which knows no color.

I went to the site, and also the Supreme Court, but didn't get to read all the way through, but I will finish it,.

From what I read I find the whole matter unclear and the Supreme Court, (and myself) or part of it, admittedly confused.

I see no indication, so far, that the case was returned to the District Court. I have not found, so far, any other information.

I agree that Mr. Ricci was discriminated against. The whole case, however, seems to rest on whether the test was discriminatory, it seems, not only for the blacks but the whites. (reverse discrimination)

I don't see where the fact that Mr. Ricci made the sixth highest grade in the leutenants test out of 47 total was addressed at all in the Supreme Court, or the District Court. Mr. Ricci DID study as was pointed out, and with a handicap of dislexia. He is to be congratulated for taking the test, even if it was skewed in any way.

This has nothing to do, however, with Sonia Sotomayor's decision. I can't find any reference to her argument, and have to guess that the lower court couldn't make heads or tails of the confusion and wanted it to go to the Supreme Court.

Champ1, SOMETIMES, I'm a gender racist! C:-)

I can only hope that Judge Sotomayor will not turn arrogant and judge politically expediently (grammer?) if she is appointed to the seat. I think she is educationally and mentally qualified for the post. Let us hope, when she is appointed, that her judgements remain uninvolved from political pressure.

For what it's worth, I just found this on the Christian Science Monitor "Politics," for what it's worth.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2...

I also found out that if you copy the URL to Word, (or whatever,) then recopy to this site, the entire URL is posted here. CSM has a blog, too, but I like Clay's cartoons and his is my first experience blogging.

OOPS! Again!

Thanks for the post Clara,

As I am no lawyer, I'm not sure what the precedent the SCOTUS has set in this area of the law. The article indicates that there was precedent from SCOTUS on the judgement rendered by Sotomayer et al.

What was impressive from the transcript was how Sotomayer dogged both sides. The terse ruling was still unimpressive.

If the Appelate Court was following the Supreme Court lead, they probably did the right thing. (Although, it does not seem like justice to me... and I would have demanded test validtion.)

Now, in the interim, the supreme court has softened its stance on this type of case, perhaps the SCOTUS will come to a different conclusion. I would need a constitutional lawyer to help me understand if the lower court did the right thing, given the precedent at the time from SCOTUS.

A different ruling by the SCOTUS may not mean that Sotomayer was wrong. A different ruling by the SCOTUS may mean that it has softened it's view. In the end, this case might actually be evidence that she follows precedent and the law.

I'm sure that will be HOTLY debated.

We'll see.

If nothing else, this is very interesting.

Today's New York Times/Politics had an article too.(Online)