This is called "projecting" what you and others are doing.

Conservatives do it very well: they take something they're personally uncomfortable with, and then they pretend like it's the other person's problem, not theirs.

It's completely made up that anyone has said she should be nominated because she's a Latina woman, as well as the fact that she does not appear to be racist.

But those two charges have been leveed on her and the left when in reality, it's some specific individuals on the right who have a problem with the fact that she's either a woman or not caucasian.

Like when Limbaugh said she's a "reverse racist". That was a projection. In reality, it is reverse racism to say "Well it's been said that she should be nominated because she's a Latina woman".

"I'm not going to look because I don't care". Typical modern conservative bullshit statement that helped our economy tank and get us into a completely unnecessary war, all because they didn't look into things.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

When you call someone a racist, all the facts of an argument get lost, and it blows up in your face if people actually don't agree with it.

The right fell into the trap already, and now the dumbest among them are using the racist label, nothing they can actually say about her record and experience can be given any credibility.

It's too bad really, she's nowhere near being a token liberal.

The joke is on the right from people like Limbaugh and Gingrich and others, since they don't really care. They know she's an alright pick, but they have to make money riling people up, just like how Colbert does, and Gingrich is enjoying his little renaissance because of it. Which is too bad, because he's actually not a dumbass, but he knows he can't lead the GOP without acquiring the dumbasses.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

Exactly and you know there's many out there that will try their damnedest to take away our guns.

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Like who?

They just passed a credit card bill and now people can carry their guns in national parks.

You don't have anything to worry about. The SCOTUS can't take your gun away.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

I hope not. I also hope they don't create any more legislation that makes it too expensive.

Once again you have to hand it to Obama for being a brilliant strategist...best I have seen in my lifetime.
Unless something truly HUGE comes out - she will go in with flying colors. No way, no how will the Republicans go in attack mode against a
Spanish woman.

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

heard on the radio today that Ms. Sotomayor has been rated (all the federal judges are apparently rated and given reviews by lawyers whove had cases in their court.) 18 of the 20 judges on her circuit were given rather positive reviews (whether the lawyers won their case or not). Sotomayor was almost unanamously decried as "terror on the bench". Shes apparently quite bitter to say the least.

Don't know how much truth there is to this, as I only heard it on the radio. If true, its rather interesting

Well, I think the trap that the worst of the righty nutjobs have already fallen into is by sinking to new lows in their attacks on her. G.Gordon Liddy said on his radio show that hopefully she won't be in SCOTUS conferences "while she's menstruating".

Limbaugh and Gingrich shot themselves in the foot with their racist charges, since it brings more attention to them for saying it than it does to the nominee, who the average person doesn't really know yet. So to get all emotional about her when the public isn't up to speed on her yet isn't the best strategy at dealing with her as a nominee.

The proof is that many Republicans are for Sotomayor, and people like Orrin Hatch among others aren't going along with the race-baiting stuff.

Barring anything close to a "pubic hair in my coke" kinda stuff, Sotomayor now has a great chance at 80 votes, right around what Roberts got.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.

All I was intending to do was seek the best way to characterise it, and I'll admit that being 'wired as an attorney' affects how I process things, even when my intention, as here, is not to 'play attorney.' Here is how I got to that characterisation:

Chauvinism means the following:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chauvinistic

That's why I felt it was the most accurate and fair way to characterise her statement. I just felt the term captured her statement better and more fairly and accurately to the exclusion of the more nefarious possibilities of the word racist.

I was going on the latter portions where the reversal by the SCOTUS comments were made that inferred IMO she is a poor legal analyst. But I accept what you are saying here and take due note of it.

I'm certainly fallible, but I'll disagree my conclusion is a major leap. Heck, I've been watching and listening to the reactions on Univision (a/k/a "The Spanish Channel") and other Hispanic stations on cable and radio and talking to my Hispanic personal circles, I'm seeing much of what I said already panning out. Overwhelmingly, seeing this appointment is a huge boost of adrenaline and seeing some of the ugly reactions by conservatives along ethnic and sex lines is very inflammatory to them, especially since it goes beyond her personally in code talk, topic talk, etc to negative themes about Hispanics generally.

I'm just being frank about it and I'm fully informed as to the obvious. If looking to be inclusive of them is pandering, then it's good pandering. And it isn't spread evenly between the Dems and GOPers on that score. And welfare isn't what attracts them. Red states actually have more of that than blue ones IIRC and poor whites certainly fill the dole rolls. If I had a dime for every poor white with a Bush/Cheney sticker who has out of wedlock kids on WIK with a custody or criminal problem for example, I'd be much richer today. But to listen to some of them, it's really the 'blacks and/or Puerto Ricans down in the city' who are the social problem of baby machines, welfare cases, criminals, etc.

The Dems do have racists in them. You'll see it in city Dem machine races where too many Dems align themselves way too much along racial/ethnic lines. You'll see the Al Sharptons, etc.

But a perfect example of where the GOP takes much greater advantage of racism not only in their own ranks but also for acquisitions of Dem racists was seeing the neighbouring WV Dem primary where the WV Dems voted at extraordinarily unusual and high odds for Clinton over Obama with many flatly admitting it was because he was black. The same thing was seen in WV when JFK ran in his primary and the word was put out that he was Catholic, and anti-Catholicism was still measurably existent at the time. And I saw it here in PA too, with some whites in the primary voting 'white' and making no concealment of why. So, who courted them and got their votes as GOP? The GOP did. McCain/Palin carried WV easily, despite the fact that WV is registered 2-1 Dem and even went for Dukakis back in 1988 when almost no other states did.

It's no secret that the GOP also courted racist white voters for the main election. It was also the GOP that played up heavily all the code talk, hit jobs and whisper talk on Obama about him suggesting he was a black racist and radical, Muslim, terrorist, foreigner, etc. And I hear the same kinds of spew on numerous AM talk radio shows like Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Cunningham, etc, and they aren't getting national airwaves and megamillions with big audiences because what they say on that isn't liked, or at least not offensive to turn them away.

The Southern Strategy as an employed strategy to turn the Dixiecrats and northern white lunchpail Dems into GOPers is an admitted fact by the GOP. Who took in people like the not so long ago segregationists? The GOP did. Who decided to make prejudice on gays (and I'm speaking more than just gay marriage) a strategy? Guys like Karl Rove right back to his acquisition of the TX state house and Governor's seat before gay marriage was an issue, and just being gay was.

And that line of nonsense has been out there way too long and sadly worked too often for too long, but with today's demographics, it's going to be a losing tactic going forward.

No they don't. They just need whites to give due credit where it's due, like a woman who has an extraordinary personal rise, an remarkable academic and accomplished judicial record, etc, without hearing public calls from GOP circles that she isn't bright enough, got it all on affirmative action, and other crap. What they need is less whites trying to invalidate their validity when on a case by case basis someone has earned their kudos. And that's not condescending...that's doing what is right. Trying to flip right into wrong is just more insult to injury.

I actually don't hang out with any attorneys. Not that I have anything against them for self-explanatory reasons, but I come from working class roots and areas and my interests follow that pattern. You'll see me doing outdoor sports whilst they more often go to the golf club, me hanging at the local joints instead of functions, etc. Hell, I don't even wear a suit in my office when I'm not in court.

I'd agree lots of people don't follow the SCOTUS. Half the country doesn't even vote. But lots do take the SCOTUS seriously that vote and take interest in politics.

Well, that is the crux of what I said...the 'true conservatives' as I view them don't need those angles. But the GOP is running rudderless and leaderless right now, and it's a mess. But nobody is going to get fooled that the 'Bubba' vote isn't a key section of it.

And insofar as the "MSM", that's been a long time self-serving fusion strawman and conspiracy theory claim of the right wing. It's especially rich coming from the right wing AM radio dominated stations, FOX, the conservative papers and bloggers, etc, given they are all 'the MSM.'

It's also just worn out its use, kind of like calling the Dems socialists and commies, etc. The media is diverse and regardless, the media certainly isn't responsible for facts the GOP makes about itself. It's been a horrendous past 8 years of performance on the whole. The party has to own up that it made its own news on that and get focused on making better news for it.

See above. The moderates are even being shouted and told to hit the road. What's being left jockeying for power are 3 groups, the very conservative, the Religious Right, and the Bubba crowds. And the three categories are not mutually exclusive. On a human one on one basis, a person can be all three, or only one and may be hostile to the other one or two segments. But that is part of the rudderless, leadershipless situation right now.

As to Limbaugh, yeah, he's a big power player and especially so now. Heck, he has pistol whipped Michael Steele into effectively getting on his knees and praising the master, gotten loads of GOP Congresspeople to laud him and fear his wrath.

And who was at CPAC so prominently cheered over those one would think the 'leaders' would otherwise be?

YouTube - RUSH LIMBAUGH: The GOP's REAL Leader?

It's certainly a union commercial with a liberal intention, but what it showed is factually true about what happened at CPAC.

Do plenty of the rest of the GOP base reject him, resent his influence, styles and many of his nastier messages? Sure.

But he's a huge player and, right now in the rudderless and leadership situation, has been very effective in getting the dominant role for his own and even helping purge out those he and his followers do not like (moderate GOPers and basically anyone else not in the Rush camp). The guy just signed a $400 million dollar contract that caters to his huge GOP base audience he carries. His motives are also profit of course, but having a party be your office supply was in his interest, and he's got it now.

I explained the extensive experiences with Hispanic people and nations and it's just a wee tad more than that sarcasm. If you want proof, just stop in and visit me sometime when in the area. I like meeting forum members and have done so, even formed friendships with them.

The rest of the replies seem to fit within the subject matter of the above, so I'll stop here. But if any point you raised desires a response for our conversational exchange, I will be happy to do so.

__________________

and what is your point, you know point, exactly?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

repeat after me- baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh


don't be a google ranger burping up quotes at me, okay?

No offence Jason, but you really have no buttress of knowledge from which to make an informed opinion…so…….the goings on as to the appellate and supreme court process as to past nominees, are as strange to you, as the dark side of the moon

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

I have no doubt she’s your candidate.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

i love watching this on tv.... the left and the MSM (except fox) keep talking about the unfounded republican attacks, the call to racism, the republicans are going to kill themselves bashing this latina woman..... yet all they can quote is fucking limbaugh and gingrich two UNELECTED POLITICIANS and they keep trying to stir the ratings with it over and over.... yet every republican politicians pretty much is going to give this person a pass and ask a few questions but know that since obama picked her for her ethnicity and is playing gotcha politics with this, they are fucked and cant do much about it without further fucking their demos with the latin crowd.

fuck MSNBC is running whole nights about this with their liberal line up of heavy weight pundits.... yet all they can go with as they do every fucking night is limbaugh a fucking pundit on radio not a politicians


fucking pathetic, still trying to garner future votes by discrediting the right with non elected blow hards...

Being overturned 60% of the time in cases taken by the Supreme Court is better than average, as the Supreme Court overturns about 75% of the Appellate rulings it reviews.
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Washington Times: Supremes Uphold Sotomayor Opinions at Above-Average Rate
Because it only takes cases where there is a reason to question the Appellate courts ruling.
So of Judge Sotomayor's 150 rulings, only 3 have been overturned, so 98% of her rulings has stood the test of time.
And that doesn't mean she ruled wrong in those three cases, the Appellate court is bound by precedent, when the Supreme Court decides to overturn a precedent and set a new precedent, they wait for a case decided by the old precedent to make it's way through the process.

here's an in depth look at the statistics
The Volokh Conspiracy - Judge Sonia Sotomayor: What the Data Show

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

No, what you want is not to have anyone disagree with you using intelligence or facts.

Attacking me without being able to actually put together a case against this nominee says something about you, not me.

__________________
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."-Sarah Palin, not having a clue once again about what she is talking about.