It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The white man is being oppressed!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:04 AM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

Explain to me then, SDog, what she meant by the sentence...

...and tell me with a straight face that had a white male said that there wouldn't have been an unholy outcry for him to not only withdraw from the nomination, but to resign his position on the judiciary.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by schrodingers dog

Explain to me then, SDog, what she meant by the sentence...

You know Seagull I recently applied for a job ...

On my application I mentioned that I lived in several countries, spoke four languages, and was asked about both my heritage and my experience.

Sure I wasn't applying for SCJ, but the employer felt my professional and personal life experiences were relevant to the job. As I also thought when on many occasions I have had to hire people.

...and tell me with a straight face that had a white male said that there wouldn't have been an unholy outcry for him to not only withdraw from the nomination, but to resign his position on the judiciary.

Males and females of every race, religion, and regional provenance, speak of their heritage every day and how it has been a part of who they are and how it has shaped their life experience, no matter how many "Republican" mouthpieces in the media and on ATS cry indignity there is nothing new or nefarious in that. It is a transparently manufactured issue made up for its own sake.

If you remember Clarence Thomas openly talked about how his heritage helped shape him into the man that he had become. Many took exception to his nomination but never for that specific issue.

You want to talk about her rulings and work as a judge, by all means, that conversation should be had, this race thing is sad and wrong.

Heck, half of the Republican party has admitted so themselves.

But even that is not really the issue here ...

The issue is who if anybody is driving the GOP train?

Because as long as it is semi-deranged shock jocks and media pundits who have nothing at stake but their ratings, the party will keep suffering from these kind of inane stupidities.

And if Coulter, Limbaugh, and Hannity are the answers to the GOP's identity questions no one will be happier than the Democratic party.

But then again what do I know, apparently I'm a communist.

[edit on 30 May 2009 by schrodingers dog]

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:46 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:57 AM
It's funny reading the idiocy on some of these posts. You talk like America = the Super Bowl and all that matters is whether or not your team wins - Democrat or Republican.

Let me enlighten you:

I am a white, Christian man. My ancestors founded this America in 1600s. THEY INVENTED IT. They came here from England and France back when kings thought they were owed the right to rule by God Himself. They came here because they were sick and tired of the corruption and tyranny they faced in England and Europe.

Between now and then, tens of millions of peasants -- like you democrats and whining liberals who can't write two words without crying "Racist! Bigot! Homophobe!" -- were imported into my country by greedy people that exploited you because your great-great-granddaddy was willing to work like a dog for the cheapest pay possible.

Now you are all democrats, liberals, etc. and all you can do is (1) insult the people who should have barricaded NY harbor and blown your ships out of the water before great-great-granddaddy set foot on Ellis Isle and (2) demand more and more goodies that you did not earn and are not yours to inherit.

Frankly, I've had it to my teeth with you people and now I am ready, willing and able to fight for my birthright, just like my forefathers did on Lexington Green and perhaps a dozen or more battlefields since then.

You people offer nothing but misery to America. You consume without producing. Your home cultures have produced nothing of value, ever, in the history of mankind. Yet you think -- thanks to 60 years of federal propaganda to promote harmony amongst cheap labor pools -- you are owed everything from White men like me just because you can open your mouths and bleat something.

Those days are over. You people will soon be shown the door.

And before you continue in your ignorant, fantasy tirades that delude you as to the nature of your enemies, I am an Ivy League graduate with several graduate degrees; I am a member of Mensa; I belong to Sons of the American Revolution and the Huguenot Society; I am a former Rotary president; as a highly paid professional I make more than any ten of you combined -- and pay nearly that much in the taxes that purchase your sneering compliance with minimal expectations of decency.

Oh yeah: I've got serious military training and it looks like the time is come when it will be quite valuable.

So go on biting the Anglo-Saxon Protestant hands that feed you. Go ahead, make your juvenile jokes and potty humour about the people who didn't blow you out of NY Harbor. Go ahead and enjoy it while you can.

The party is over. This is your zenith, your high water mark. This is as far as you go.

My name is Joe but I am the Spirit of '76

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:11 PM
as a libertarian, not a republican or dem... i find her remarks very racist, which i doubt you can take a line like that out of context. i am more deeply disturbed by her membership in la raza... if that doesn't show an agenda, what does?

i also disagreed with roberts being appointed by bush, for different reasons.

judging from your remarks and your source, i don't think you care... and seeing another liberal in a thread say vote ron paul gave me a good laugh.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:24 PM
wise white men reach better conclusions than latino women.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by joeofthemountain

Nice white pride rant ...

Let me direct you to a website where you can continue this conversation with those of your ilk.

And mentioning zeniths, I'm afraid you reached yours in 1865.

Dem good ol' days ani't coming back!

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:34 PM
We are all being oppressed in one shape or another. Our freedoms are constantly under attack from those in government..on both sides of the aisle.

All of us have set limitations by those in power on how we think we should dictate and live out our the most part set by taxes and inflation.

It doesn't matter if we are the majority on some issues...because we will always be the minority in others. Unfortunately people are unable to accept others living their lives as they choose...they feel that others should live as they do. It has to stop. Freedom to the individual...without infringing on another's rights.....we need to go back to that.

It will only get least for now.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:53 PM
this thread is interesting, to say the least.All i can add is my experience, as I have no idea what is in the hearts and heads of the OP or Ms. Sotomayor.
Since 1988 I have voted in 6 presidential elections, and numerous congressional elections , and I have never voted , ever, for a republican.All through the turmoil of the Bush II administration I was astounded at the ill will handed out by the right wing to anyone that disagreed with them.But you know what?That is exactly what is going on now with the Obama administration.On forums here in my home state of arizona, chiefly the azcentral website, i have seen time and time again some trolling poster call anyone who questions any of the current admins policies things like mouth breathing right winger.I am quite sure that this goes on in all areas of the country now.Is this the unity that the dems promised?Then, out of all the possible candidates that El Presidente could consider , he picks a woman that has clearly drawn a line in the racial sand? How does a pick like this do anything to promote harmony here in the USA?I hate to sound cynical, but i doubt that neither party nor their leaders are capable of righting the sinking ship that is our country, and picks like alito, sotomayer, and the ilk show that the supreme court of the USA is little more than another station for political paybacks to appease the voting block that they represent.As for the idiotic title , does it seem that farfetched that white people can be the recipients of racism?
I would love to see a study done to determine how many people just in the state of az. have been denied a construction or landscaping job solely because they do not speak spanish. I have no clue as to the actual number, but I have firsthand knowledge that it does happen.As a site superintendent for a general contractor that does work here in az, as well as in nevada and california i have seen , on numerous occasions, white men, and black men who have taken the initiative to show up at some of the sites i have been in charge of and ask the subcontractors, who are about 90% hispanic, for a job. Not all these men had quality experience, but that is not why they were denied a job, they were denied because they did not speak spanish. Tell me that is not racism.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by joeofthemountain

Who would "you people" be, oh spirit of '76? Lilywhite folks? Or folks of all shapes sizes, ethnic backgrounds, racial identity, sexual preferences, who have helped fully as much as you to build this country? Your bigoted rant is terribly out of date, it's a shame you and (how did SDog phrase it? Oh yes...)your ilk haven't realized that yet.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

wise white men reach better conclusions than latino women.

That's nonsense and you know it.

Besides that is not what she said...

"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,"

And that is the exact same kind of argument used when Clarence Thomas was nominated...

John Yoo has similarly stressed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him" and argued that Thomas' work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the less fortunate acquired through personal experience.

If we judged everybody based on all the stupid, ill phrased or ill advised things we have said in our lives no one would be deemed qualified to do anything.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by grover]

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:30 PM
You know, sometimes it does seem like white people don't get fair treatment in America...

More specifically, white, heterosexual, middle-class males.

It's perfectly fine to say "cracker" for instance, (which doesn't bother me)
but try saying the word "'n-word'" or "spick" and if youre white, you're a racist! (Normally, I would never say those racist words, just using the WORDS as an example... Censoring one would require all three to be, if not you MODS are helping prove my point haha...)

One time a dude in highschool said "man, your really WHITE!" Without thinking, I replied "man, your'e really BLACK" with a smile, and everyone in the lockeroom looks up like theyre waiting for the dude to punch me or something. He just chuckled and went about his business, but the fact that people looked up like that shows the difference in perception. And I know that there ARE guys who probably wouldve taken offense, even if they just made an equally racial comment towards me. The funny part is, I'm only 3/4 white! Other 1/4 is native mexican. (mexican indian)

It just seems like its accepted for others to be racist towards whites.

And we don't even smell the worst! (joking, I'm sure some of us do, especially if theyre from the South)

[edit on 30-5-2009 by mostlyspoons]

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

You want to talk about her rulings and work as a judge, by all means, that conversation should be had, this race thing is sad and wrong.

Indeed. That's what the conversation should be about. Her comments worry me, not because they're bigoted...I don't really believe they are, they do, however, hint at the possibility that she is not as objective as she should be.

I freely admit to not being as familiar with her as some. that's going to change over the next little while. Her comments are worriesome to me, but I've been wrong before so it wouldn't be overly surprising if I was this time too...

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
i find her remarks very racist, which i doubt you can take a line like that out of context. i am more deeply disturbed by her membership in la raza... if that doesn't show an agenda, what does?

Racist???? If you are not a "person of color" do not DARE mention the word racist!

And no worries. It is all good. When the best in medicine, agriculture, technology disappears...cause the white guy disappears....I am pretty darn sure the La Raza (and the Black Panther Rants) will disappear too.

They will be too busy finding food to complain! Or to busy killing eachother, or too busy....sheesh to busy but definitely not building bridges or creating the latest vaccines!

Machetes anyone???

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by grover

ah... what i said is nonesense (i agree) but what she said is... out of context? if i where using a pc and not my phone i would copy and paste what she said and put "white men" instead of latino and then what?

everyone would think it racist.

thanks for proving my point.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck

thanks for proving my point.

And what is that Rockpuck?

That you agree with Limbaugh, Coulter and Newt that she is a racist?

That sound you hear is good ol' boy Jesse Helms laughing it up in his grave.
Heck, if he hadn't kicked the bucket he'd be heading up the GOP if it was up to these jackasses.

Please ... half the Republican party has already distanced themselves from this ignorance.

It's freakin' embarrassing is what it is.

[edit on 30 May 2009 by schrodingers dog]

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:23 PM
These are excerpts from her speech in question. One I can only assume given the rhetoric of some here have actually not bothered to read but are taking their knowledge of it from the talking heads and talk show blah blah blahs.

This is essentially complete... I have edited it into four parts.

The first discusses the nature of racial tension in the nation. It goes on but can be summed up in the first paragraph.

... America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl" -- a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity - is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences...

The next part of the speech discusses the status of women and minorities on the bench and can again be summed up in the first paragraph:

As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women. In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge, the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%. Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge. So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly. These figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.

The next section leads into the major theme of the speech in which she discusses the assertions of one Judge Miriam Cederbaum that there are so few women and minorities on the bench that their influence is insignificant.

... Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement...

The final section is in total.

... While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. 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. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor -- I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area - Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experienceswould more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that 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. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

I think if you read this speech in its entirety you will find that it is a far more nuanced speech than the sound bites would have it.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:34 PM

"I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does," says Thomas, in a quote that surfaced on Friday in print but not video. "You know, on my current court I have occasion to look out the window that faces C Street, and there are converted buses that bring in the criminal defendants to our criminal justice system, bus load after bus load. And you look out and you say to yourself, and I say to myself almost every day, 'But for the grace of God there go I.'"

"You feel that you have the same fate, or could have, as those individuals. So I can walk in their shoes, and I can bring something different to the Court. And I think it is a tremendous responsibility, and it is a humbling responsibility; and it is one that, if confirmed, I will carry out to the best of my ability..."

"With respect to the underlying concerns and feelings about people being left out, about our society not addressing all the problems of people, I have those concerns,"

"I will take those to the grave with me. I am concerned about the kids on those buses I told you. I am concerned about the kids who didn't have the strong grandfather and strong grandparents to help them out of what I would consider a terrible, terrible fate. But you carry that feeling with you. You carry that strength with you. You carry those experiences with you."

Justice Clarence Thomas during his Sept. 1991 confirmation hearings.


Sandra Day O'Connor emphasized that her role as a woman on the court affected her judicial capacities, while Samuel Alito acknowledged being influenced by the history of his ancestors when it came to the immigration debates.

So based on these Ms. Sotomayor's comments are not so out of the mainstream after all.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by grover]

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:20 PM
I'm not surprised at all by this it's OK in our culture to hate white males and even make death threats against them, just look at that black panther case being dropped. Does no one remember all the Jeremiah write stuff during the election as well, as far as I can tell hating white males is completely acceptable and makes you popular. All this stuff is always the same everyone one claims to want equality until they get it, then they decide equality is not enough and they want special treatment and more, it happens with feminists too.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:38 PM
cant you see man this is a dive and conquer tactic why do you think obama dropped the whole black panther charges and gave us this woman who is racist r a c i s t not reverse racist racist they want us to fight over race and then theyve already won when it comes down to yall argueing over party lines that mean not a damn thing and no one sees it a democrat is just as dumb is just as republican and a "spic" is just as stupid as a "cracker" race is a joke we are almost all related in some way and yet race is still an issue in todays societies

divide and conquer people black vs white black v latino latino v white rep v dem its all a joke and yall act like one is better then the other

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in