Obama Plays Race, Sex and Ideology Cards with Supreme Court Pick

A major knee jerk Liberal woman who feels that the Supreme Courts job is to interpret the laws with feelings and emotion and make policy…….go figure.

Now who in the republican party will step up and stand against this joke of a nomination.

@Joe: Technically, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court only overturned Plessy v. Ferguson’s “separate but equal” principle because separation had a negative psychological effect on African-American children in schools. It did lead to desegregation, but that’s not my point. I want to point out that your argument that Supreme Court creates policy is invalid. Supreme Court’s role in government is to merely warn the government (Congress) when a law it has created conflicts with the laws in the Constitution – it has no means of enforcing its rulings, because the Supreme Court has no way of enforcing its rulings. Congress can ignore it if it wants to, or undercut its funding if it wants to.

Mike’s America did not say that he prefers an all-white male panel of judges on the Supreme Court. He’s pointing out her sexism and racism by noting what she says about Hispanic women. Do you honestly think it’s fair, or even ethical, for her to be saying that?

Our forefathers designed the Supreme Court the way it is for a reason – so that it stays far away from politics of society and so that it can render unbiased, unswayed judgments. I hardly think this is what they intended.

RNC mistakingly releases their soto talking points:

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/26/rnc-fumbles-sotomayor-talking-points/

…or RNC “plays” talking points in media echo chamber

The SCOTUS is highly politicized, hence the term “Legislating from the Bench”
Appointments are highly politicized as are confirmations. Activist Judges do not follow the Constitution, they amend it at whim without a Constitutional Convention or the votes of elected representatives. That is why I consider an Activist, Racist, Sexist Judge like Sotomayer to be a very poor choice. Can You say Class Warfare?

@Lynn Green:
@Joe:

Maybe you can explain Sotomayor’s opinion 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.”

Activist judge? Maybe, maybe not. Liberal? Probably but whatever. To suggest that gender and race “more often than not” are the key to reaching “a better conclusion” than that arrived at by another person is patently racist. Or tell me why it is not racist.

Seriously, if someone came to you for a job and during the interview you asked them why they would perform their duties better than other applicants and the response is “Because I’m not that color or that sex, I’m the other”, would you hire that person?

If she had said a “different conclusion” there would be no reason to deny the rationality of the statement and no reason to suggest a prejudice on her part but to say “a better conclusion” is entirely another matter. I don’t know enough about Sonia Sotomayor, at this point, to have made up my mind about her but a comment as disturbing as that demands a full explanation.

Until today Republican Presidents had appointed 7 of the 9 justices.

Real American Patriot:

http://judicialnetwork.com/cgi-data/press_releases/files/98.shtml

JCN Statement on nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court

May 26, 2009

Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, on nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court:

“Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.

“She reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety. On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America’s firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas. The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision.

“She has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court.”

JCN Open Memo
RE: Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor

May 26, 2009

TO: JCN Members and Interested Parties
FROM: Wendy Long, Counsel to Judicial Confirmation Network
RE: Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor

* President Obama has threatened to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences instead of neutrally applying the law. In selecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his threat.

* Judge Sotomayor will allow her feelings and personal politics to stand in the way of basic fairness. In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. The percuriam opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way to bury the firefighters’ important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her.

* According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”

* Sotomayor’s terrible decision in Ricci is under review by the Supreme Court and an opinion is expected by the end of June.

* Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when
she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

* The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her terrible record of reversals by the Supreme Court.

* Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the Supreme Court by Nan Aron of the very liberal Alliance for Justice, who stated in a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had “been through an initial vetting and fit into the criteria that we believe should be the standard for any Supreme Court justice.”

* The White House is sure to argue that Sotomayor is a “bipartisan pick” because Bush 41 appointed her to the district court: President George H.W. Bush nominated Sotomayor in 1991 only because the New York senators had forced on the White House a deal that enabled Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district court nominees in New York. In 1998, 29 Republican senators voted against President Clinton’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.

http://www.judicialnetwork.com
******************************************************************

Non partisan, non biased, non racist, non sexist, non activist, impartial?
Not rated so by her peers. Far from it but “politically correct” for Team Obama and their agenda.
On spew, come armed with some facts of Your Own. Who did Your Homework in School?
SCOTUS Rulings should be made from the Constitutional Law, not prejudice or a personal
agenda. According to her Peers, she clearly has an agenda.

Is that clear enough?

Leah, Fairly administered, impartial and non biased adjudication of issues is the standard.
Adherence to the Laws “as written and within the full intent” of the Law is what sets Our American Justice System as superior to those found in the Middle East, Russia, China and third world nations.

Thanks for confirming that. Subjectivity and bias appear to be firmly entrenched on Sotomayor’s record and resume which clearly makes her unfit for the bench at any level, especially SCOTUS.
It would be a waste of an appointment on her as if she had any integrity as she would have to recuse herself from 90% of the casework.

@URI:

It could be a lot worst and sadly, the Republicans would not be able to do a thing to stop it.

Carol Platt Liebau:

Republicans don’t have the votes to defeat Sotomayor — and should be extremely cautious even in considering a filibuster. There is so much at stake right now that it’s going to be important to “prioritize” properly. But what the GOP will have is an opportunity through the hearings to show what liberal judging is all about — and they need to take that moment.

If they can do nothing else about the nomination, Republicans should make sure that the average voter understands: What should frighten regular Americans is that judges like Sotomayor threaten our freedom because they are committed to particular results in advance.

They have confused the policy-making that elected representatives do with the decision-making and consitutional interpretation that judges are supposed to do. Sure, they give lip service to “interpretting, not making” the law — but then go right on and do just that. They make law in accordance with their own policy preferences. Judge Sotomayor has even said that the court is “where policy is made.” (ht: Drudge Report)

Presumably, one’s in good shape if one is a Latina before Judge Sotomayor. Perhaps not as much if one is a white male. And that’s the problem. Where does it end if white men can only get a fair shake before white male judges, and Latinas can only get a fair shake before Latina judges?

By trashing the idea of judicial impartiality — and discounting the importance of aspiring to it — Judge Sotomayor engages in a thought (and judicial) process that is not only unjust, but is deeply inimical to the success of a diverse country like ours.

@ URI

Really?

Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.

Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor’s decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach “flies in the face of the statutory language.” Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)

Although SCOTUS upheld her ruling, this one is troubling. She’s supposed to be this great intellect, yet she got spanked by the Supremes over basic law?

In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch’s argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor’s ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to “wasteful, duplicative litigation.”

Just a few examples. You can read more here It’s CNBC, not a rightwing hate site.

Fit fit

“It might be easier for you guys to just assume the position and not get all worked up over what will be an inevitable conclusion…”

A loss of Fair and Objective due process should work Every American up. A rework of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should get You worked up. A loss of Rights to Private Property, Individual Freedoms and further Government intrusion into Your Life should get You worked up. The possibility of Reverse Discrimination should get You worked up.

I have never assumed any position without it being an individual choice based upon a thought process, not intimidation. In two days I will send my Daughter off to the US Air Force Academy to continue her education by her choice, hard work in school and a fair and impartial selection process. Not through influence or an affirmative action quota despite the fact that I am 1/4 Lakota Sioux and know all about Government programs that hold Native Americans hostage to the dole.

I was an Army OCS Grad, have two degrees all through my efforts, reached field grade rank, despite frequent deployments and several undeclared wars. I was never entitled to anything but recognition for My Own performance. I served as legal counsel, despite the lack of a law degree for Soldiers up for Courts Martial by their choice because they were my responsibility and they did not trust SJA to work hard enough on that duty.

I am knowledgeable in the UCMJ, Geneva Conventions, Treaties, SOFA agreements, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, US Code and Foreign Law. I am just an old Airborne Trooper that have served in Command, Staff and worked with Federal Agencies. Am I qualified for SCOTUS appointment?

Nope.
* I always paid my taxes on time
* Never allowed my opinions to get in the way of my sworn duties
* Attended UNC Chapel Hill and University of Maryland and was not an Affirmative Action Ivy League Club Member
* Raised on a Cattle Ranch in Montana, not a big city street corner
* Was never political until now that I am Retired and see someone pulling a fast on on My Nation
* Voted Absentee and encouraged My Soldiers to do so regardless of IF the Ballots would be counted
* Deployed to anywhere in less than 72 hours regardless of the Mission in My Personal Views
* Refused to be intimidated by Punks, Thugs or Career Politicians or compromised my values
* Earned several berets and Foreign decorations
* Am an NRA Life Member and stalk and take game on my Property and taught My Daughter to do same and make a damn fine meal of it.
* Attended Chaplain Services and a Church when Home where no politics or Hate was a part of the Sermon.
* Have read the Bible, the Koran and found some common ground
* Own Conservative values from practice, not rhetoric from folks wanting my vote
* Am an Independent and do not worry about Caucuses, Primaries or read Polls
* Have been sent on Fools errands globally but deployed and did the Missions
* Learned several Languages and embraced many Cultures other than mine
* Can quote Shakespeare or Mark Twain or Churchill or Kipling from memory

But not qualified for appointment or willing to see unqualified folks be confirmed if they can harm the Nation that I defended, without reservation for the majority of mt adult life without saying NOPE.

My views and experiences are not Yours. I never walked a mile in Your boots but know danger from allowing anyone an easy path to SCOTUS by ethnicity, acceptable PC bias, ethnic preference or political gain from the most unqualified or Corrupt Congress President ever.

My conscience will not allow Me to buy into that. Now off to grill up the Last Supper of beef steaks and baked potatoes for my only begotten and let you all question Politics, Torture and SCOTUS appointments to Team Obama biased and compromised candidates supported by the soon over taxed majority.

Take Care!

* Old Trooper. org is coming when I get back from France. FA authors are welcome.
But be patient. I am not tech savvy.

Any of You that want to piss on my boots will just have to stand in line. I have beaches to see, Respect to pay and will not be playing golf or handing out IPODS with my Ego boosting BS on them. One travel day on each end, 5 visit days to look at the War that Liberated Europe and pay respects to those that loved Freedom and Duty more than their mortal being.

And…by the way…

are you saying that if you have the “misfortune” to be born with money, status, an unlimited future (that you seem to feel _needs_ to be limited), and go the the best universities through your own efforts and the good connections of your family, you are somehow unworthy of the office of Supreme Court Justice?

Is there some automatic qualification handicap you’d like to impose?

… assume the position. LOL Well, Fit, I might want to say that just because you already have doesn’t mean the rest of us need to go quietly into Obama’s “remaking of America” nightmare.

We’re just hoping that after you’ve been bending over for so long, the blood will rush to your head and you may have to come up for air… then figure out that being shafted ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. ala, it sounds so much better in “just words” than deeds.

I do not think anyone should stop speaking her/his mind. I just ask that we have a rational discussion. I think there is a world of difference between bringing one’s perspective and life experiences to the interpretation of the law and Constitution and “playing the race card.” Law is a human institution and must be viewed from a human perspective. I think having someone like Sotomeyer on the bench will be to the nation’s benefit.

suek

And…by the way… are you saying that if you have the “misfortune” to be born with money, status, an unlimited future (that you seem to feel _needs_ to be limited), and go the the best universities through your own ( affirmative action and Government Grant) efforts and the good connections of your family to the NAACP or ACLU, you are somehow unworthy of the office of Supreme Court Justice?

Is there some automatic qualification handicap you’d like to impose?
**************************************************************
Nope but gender, ethnicity, PC bias acknowledged and a piss poor record after a Politically Correct appointment as a Judge with exhibited bias, racism, sexist outcomes is fine with You?
**************************************************************

If you were born with huge money that You were “present” but worked for, you would be a Kennedy or a Rockefeller and leverage cash for power or be a Clinton that stole it for redistribution to power brokers or be be an Obama that promised everything and does not give a rats rump about Your America but His America …I will not accept that. Socialist America will resemble Kenya or Somalia.
Ready accept that?

You must be smarter than that?

Or Not.

Old Trooper, I was going to take my dad to Normandy , He went in 6/6/1944 Utah beach . U.S. Army, 531st infantry engineers . first wave. He has elected to have Open heart surgery to correct a valve issue . He called me today and called the trip off. He is one tough old soldier and I am confident he will come through it fine. We will go another time though. I wish you the best on your trip there. He spent Memorial day on the USS Intrepid in NYC and had a good day.
Regards.

A veterans son.

These are the issues that divide the conservatives. This nomination will create a bigger reef and split in our country.

If the conservatives go against a Hispanic woman being nominated for the USSC, how are we going to get women to support us? and what about the Hispanic voters?.

Boy, this thread sure brought out the moonbats and the DNC talking points.
She’s a moderate, it’s racist to oppose her, you can’t win so just give up, blah, blah, blah.

Actually Mike, I think that this nominee is precisely the reason that we who voted for Pres. Obama “pulled the lever” for him. (Of course, in my case, it was take the pen and make my mark.)

I think that Sotomayor will bring a much needed perspective to the court. We judge according to our perspectives. That is why it is important to gain many different ones.

And if you want to accuse Jesus of class warfare, then be my guest. I am the son of a preacher, and one thing my papa taught me was “never fight on the side of Goliath.” That is why my fight is for social and economic justice just like Dr. King and Senor Chavez.

Of course, Warren Buffet remarked, “If there is class warfare going on in this country, my class is winning.”

@Mike: “safe bet” that many who voted for Obama did not realize it meant nominating someone like Sotomayor??? I am curious what your evidence is. Our president’s approval ratings remain quite high. Consumer confidence levels in the economy just took a very large and very unexpected jump. Pres. Obama campaigned on change, and Judge Sotomayor represents change if she represents anything. I think that the people of this nation will be okay with her and okay with the man who put forward her nomination.

Perhaps you can answer this for me. Did Clarence Thomas nomination represent a playing of the race card? Or do you just wish to claim that he was nominated for his fine intellect alone?

@uri:

If the conservatives go against a Hispanic woman being nominated for the USSC, how are we going to get women to support us? and what about the Hispanic voters?.

Conservatives are going against Sotomayor as we went against Obama; has nothing to do with her being a “Hispanic” nor a “woman” anymore than voting against Obama’s election had to do with the color of his skin. Why is it liberal multiculturalists are so obsessed about skin color?

I think that Sotomayor will bring a much needed perspective to the court. We judge according to our perspectives. That is why it is important to gain many different ones.

Just how many more perspectives should we need to achieve social justice? An Asian one? A Native-American one? A Persian one? An Arabic one?

Ain’t enough slots to fill; and I disagree about the importance of “many different” perspectives; how about the one that most accurately interprets the Constitution?

@Mike’s America:
@Lynn Green:

Mike,

I’ve asked twice and you’ve asked at least that many times but Lynn/Robert Green is forced to evade the questions because he recognizes that an opinion like the one expressed by Sonia Sotomayor is racist but is willing to accept that because he believes that her political perspective is more important. It is an integrity issue for Lynn/Robert Green and worst of all, the promotion of such prejudice and bigotry reverses the progress of Civil Rights in this country for EVERYONE.

He adds insult to injury by claiming to seek social justice as prescribed by Martin Luther King, Jr. But Lynn/Robert Green, what do you think King meant when he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”?

When you have a judge, in 2009, that believes that one skin color is superior to another, then I would suggest that the dream has become a nightmare when people such as Lynn/Robert Green have so little character themselves that they accept blatant racism for the sake of political expediency.

That is why my fight is for social and economic justice just like Dr. King and Senor Chavez.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen.

There you have it.

I knew that given enough rope he would hang himself.

Lynn, the son of a preacher, is a fan of Hugo Chavez and he equates the actions of Hugo Chavez to the work of Dr. King.

Wow!

That speaks volumes Lynn.

It really does.

Here’s a clue for you Lynn: If you’re a fan of Hugo, you’re already fighting “on the side of Goliath.”

@ URI

Uri, if it was Obama’s intent to nominate a Hispanic to placate the Hispanic vote and the ever growing Hispanic population, he made a huge mistake. My lovely bride of almost 20 years is originally from Mexico. She’s always been here legally, so call of the IP tracing dogs.
There is no love loss between other Hispanic groups and Puerto Ricans.

On another point, I believe you are right. The Republicans need to do their due dilligence on the nominee, get all their points out and then allow an up or down vote.

@Lynn Green:

Dr. King would have opposed affirmative action because it gives preference based on skin color.

Dr. King fought for equality and blindness toward skin color.

You say that you notice the usual misreading of Dr. King’s “content of character” statement.

Who is misreading that statement here?

@ Mike
Oh, I’m betting Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro are among his idols as well. Prolly has a Che flag in his mommies basement.

@Chihuahua: You are a very good example, you and many other conservatives, of what I have been saying here about perspective. You take from Dr. King’s work and twist it to your own purpose. No wonder we need someone like Sotomayor on the Supreme Court Bench.

The truth about Dr. King and affirmative action is that King did support it in concept. I say in concept because affirmative action did not exist in his day. But he supported the basic idea behind affirmative action: groups who have suffered past discrimination need to have laws and policies which make up for such discrimination.

King supported affirmative action type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he put it, “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro to compete on a just and equal basis” (quoted in Let the Trumpet Sound, by Stephen Oates).

In a 1965 Playboy interview, King compared affirmative action-style policies to the GI Bill: “Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs…. And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war.” Veterans still benefit from this type of affirmative action.

@Mikkke: I bet reason why you confused Cesar with Hugo Chavez is that all Hispanics are alike to you. “Justicia y Dignidad Para Todos!” “Si Se Puede!”

Why don’t you go back and read up on Ricci v DeStefano and tell us how Sotomayor’s negating the results of a blind examination for promotions is justified since no minorities qualified for advancement when the results were in, Lynn Green.

Then why don’t return to all of us here and explain how those who are qualified need to be shoved aside for those that weren’t qualified merely because of race.

The GI Bill has nothing to do with affirmative action, but is legislation for physical disabilities. That legislation is blind to race or gender… offered equally to all. What you suggest is compensation and perks offered because of the same. In other words, you are a bigot, who continues to live in the past.

As I said, your idea of “christianity” is to tear down others, not raise up the downtrodden. The result is a homogenous society and a low rate of living for the masses, and power and wealth for the ruling class. I suggest you wander down to Venezuela and Cuba and spend your time practicing your peculiar brand of anti-Christianity there. That is if they let you.

@Aye Chihuahua:

Ouch! What a smack down. Lynn should have just stuck to looking at the pictures from that ‘65 Playboy.

And plagiarism too! What a mess but Joe Biden will still be your friend.

@Mikkke: As soon as you apologize for falsely accusing me of supporting Fidel Castro et al as well as other slights and jibes.

As far as “plagarism” goes, this is not an academic research paper. If you want footnotes, then go to college. The truth of the matter is, King favored special consideration for groups victimized by past discrimination.

As King said in “Why We Can’t Wait” “Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic.” In other words, simply giving a person freedom without providing the available means to utilize that freedom is very hollow. The apostle James has much the same idea in his letter to the Christian church: “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2: 15-17)

To simply say that you want those who have been economically disadvantaged to have political rights without paying attention to economic justice, “what good is it?”

That, btw, is what creates Castro and HUGO Chavez’s.

@Lynn Green:

As far as “plagarism” goes, this is not an academic research paper.

A thief is a thief and a liar is a liar.

You happen to be both.

Un mentiroso y un ladrón.

I love the way you quote the Bible when it’s convenient and ignore it when convenient.

Does Exodus give you instructions saying that it’s OK to steal as long as it’s not a research paper?

You will find nothing, nothing in Dr. King’s writings, his speeches, or his quotes in which he advocates for preferential treatment for blacks or any other minority group.

Equality yes. Preference no.

It simply isn’t there.

Apparently, Lynn Green, you distort not only Christianity to suit your particular politics, but you also deign to place words in the mouth of Martin Luther King. After listening to you mutilate Dr. King’s aspirations, I figure I’ve had about enough of your pompous attempts at piety and absolute stupidty. In your, and your cohorts, desperate attempt to legitimize reverse discrimination, you completely mischaracterize King’s deeds of addressing the economic plight of black Americans.

Take for example, King’s most notable “affirmative action” (as you want to call it) phase of his civil rights movement, Operation Breadbasket.

The establishment of Operation Breadbasket in Chicago in 1966 stemmed from what Martin Luther King, Jr. called the “second phase” of the civil rights movement, an expansion to northern cities where thousands of African Americans confronted economic exploitation in urban slums. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) believed that through the use of nonviolent direct action tactics such as boycotts, selective buying, and picketing, Operation Breadbasket could increase the number of African American workers hired by companies doing business in the inner city and encourage the growth of black-owned businesses. According to King, “the fundamental premise of Breadbasket is a simple one. Negroes need not patronize a business which denies them jobs, or advancement, or plain courtesy.”

Operation Breadbasket did precisely that… utilize the free market and consumer demand to boycott local businesses to achieve change for the local black community. Using your distorted analysis in parts, King utilized the person’s “granted equality” and “freedom” which gave him the “available means to utilize that freedom” – i.e. consumer demand and financial incentives to cater to the local black communities with both jobs and services.

Hardly “hollow”.

*No where*, I repeat no where, did he advocate government mandates for more-than-equal treatment, which is affirmative action. No where in King’s history would he support a blind examination for firemen for promotions, and then pronounce those results unjust because a black man did not come in with some of the top percentile scores. That is “affirmative action”… more-than-equal treatment based on race.

Instead, King changed the communities by using the driving force of consumer power… not Congressional legislation… to implement his “second phase”.

You’d do well to abandon your attempts to portray yourself as the son of a preacher and pay more attention to the man you purport would embrace government mandates. In the Kings Papers on his second phase nonviolent direct action:

2) Nonviolent resistance does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through noncooperation or boycotts, but he realizes that noncooperation and boycotts are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent. The end is redemption and reconciliation. The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness.

3) This method is that the attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in those forces. It is evil we are seeking to defeat, not the persons victimized by evil. Those of us who struggle against racial injustice must come to see that the basic tension is not between races. As I like to say to the people in Montgomery, Alabama: “The tension in this city is not between white people and Negro people. The tension is at bottom between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. And if there is a victory it will be a victory not merely for 50,000 Negroes, but a victory for justice and the forces of light. We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may happen to be unjust.”

4) Nonviolent resistance avoids not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love. In struggling for human dignity the oppressed people of the world must not allow themselves to become bitter or indulge in hate campaigns. To retaliate with hate and bitterness would do nothing but intensify the hate in the world. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can be done only by projecting the ethics of love to the center of our lives.

Dr. King was a genuine Christian spirit that never sought to use the government and laws to tear down the white man. He chose to educate him to the value of a black white partnership. Socialist government mandates have nothing to do with Dr. King’s dream then… or now. He – unlike you idiots that use and abuse his words today – was wise enough to know that you cannot legislate charity and respect into the heart of man. So when it came to economic equality, King used the same tools at the disposal of all races … black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Native. … the free capitalist market.

Your socialist utopian dream of America is an abomination that not only Dr. King would detest, but would speak out today in protest. He would join such voices as Ward Connerly – and even the comedian, Bill Cosby.

So spare us all your pious arrogance and stupidity. You aren’t worth a drop of any of these men’s saliva by comparison. And I refuse to allow you to degrade them further.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me what her sex, race, or religion is. Nor do I care that she has been nominated to replace a liberal Justice. While her experience as a judge may be lengthy, if it is based on a career that has found itself often in conflict with the Constitution and other Supreme Court decisions, then she is not Justice material. What concerns me, and should bother everyone, is that she is without doubt an unabashed activist judge who believes in violating the separation of powers by legislating from the bench. What’s more, she places personal “empathy” in cases before her as more important than upholding the Constitution. There is sound reason why justice must be blind. Her on the record statement regarding that courts are “where policy is made” makes her wholly unqualified for the position.

~

On an unrelated nit=picky matter:

Is there a way we could please not have multiple FA threads covering the exact same issue? Interest in a subject is great, but it also gets monotonous and confusing when there are multiple but very closely related conversations.

Drifting off topic is to be expected on forums. Whither it is because something related that is brought up in the course of the discussion or deliberate to confuse the issue (Especially when you have one group of people bent on changing the subject to avoid the issue.)

I do understand that a thread by one Author could have a much different angle or element of focus than another Author’s. (For example: the issue of torture at Guantanamo Bay and the events of Abu Ghraib are both related, but different cases) All I’m asking is when they are very similar, could Authors please at least consider adding their post as a comment under a pre-existing thread?

I apologize for going off topic. Sometimes I just get annoyed with forum redundancy because it often makes it hard to tell one thread from another or find your way back.

To Wordsmith:

I agree….so what were you guys talking about again?

Ron

@ Aqua

Anyone? Bueller? Didn’t think so. Funny, lefties have a problem with NA’s. I was talking to the black girl one day not long after the election. She said, “finally we have a black president. Finally after all the things black folks have been through we have our president.” I said, I’m half Indian, where’s my president? She got pissy and told me I should be happy for black people and put race aside. Obama would represent all people of color.
So, I guess you have to be a minority to represent everyone. Guess Sonia will take care of all the brothers and sisters on the Rez.

Democrats: “Do as we say and not as we do. If you complain about it, our MSN goons will automatically put out a journalistic hit on you.”