Among the material release this week by the White House is the disclosure that Judge Sonia Sotomayor belong to a private women’s-only group. The membership raises an interesting question given the controversies in the past over nominees who belong to men-only club. Should the standard be different for women or should exclusive club membership no longer be an issue in nominations?
The Sotomayor documents also reveal that her controversial comment about Latina judges giving superior opinions to white males was not a one time slip — but used repeatedly by her in speeches, here.
Sotomayor agreed to join the Belizean Grove — the female reaction to an equally secretive all-male club called the Bohemian Grove. It is a fascinating dilemma. Feminists would like object to a nominee who belonged to the Bohemian Grove, but this nominee joined a female club designed on the model of the gender-discriminatory club.
The Belizean Grove has about 125 high-ranking members and is based out of New York.
The group describes itself as “a constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, nonprofit and social sectors; who build long term mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same.”
The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was attacked for having a restrictive covenant in his deed, though he insisted that he knew nothing about it, here.
Liberals insisted that Gustavus Adolphus Puryear IV, a Bush nominee for the trial court, should be denied confirmation over his belonging to a club with a discriminatory past and only one known black member, here.
Nominee Vaughn R. Walker was also opposed on the basis of his membership in an all-men club. He was eventually confirmed after passing through the committee with heavy opposition.
Reagan appointees were also opposed on the basis of discriminatory clubs like Francis A. Keating 2d.
Notably, one of Clinton’s high-ranking nominees was opposed for membership in a racially exclusive club. Indeed, when Eleanor D. Acheson joined the club it did not grant female members full rights.
What is fascinating about this latest story is that Sotomayor has a profile that would normally not thrill liberals. Not only does she belong to a discriminatory club, but she voted against discrimination claims in 78 out of 96 cases. I happen to agree with many of those rulings, but there is a question of the response of some of these same groups if this were another nominee with this voting record and such a membership. As I have noted in my criticism of both the attacks from the left and right (as well as my review of Sotomayor’s decisions), there is a disconnect between the rhetoric and record of this nominee from both sides. I do not believe that Sotomayor’s record shows bias. Indeed, I find it quite impressive in a lack of bias. Moreover, her voting record should be welcomed by conservatives in a number of respects. If she continues to vote as a justice as she did as an appellate judge, the left will lose ground with her nomination in some important areas. Nevertheless, this nomination continues to be argued on the basis of robotic soundbites from groups on both the left and right — often in direct contradiction of their earlier positions.
For the full story, click here.
I am not concerned with private clubs that Judge Sotomayor has joined to compete against the clubs that would not admit them. I am concerned that the process of reviewing her record has spun out of control and turned into a Fox News circus.
Yoseh:
You are new to this site. We valuable civil discourse — a rarity to be sure among many sites on the Internet. We do not allow personal attacks or juvenile insults. Your last comment was deleted. If you prefer such exchanges, I ask that you move on to other sites more fitting with your tastes.
Lotta,
All (fundamentalist) religions are equally silly to those who don’t practice them.
yoseh: “The same number said they had been reprimanded or cautioned at work for sharing their faith.
There has been a series of cases over recent months featuring Christians who have been suspended after expressing their religious views, including a teacher who complained that a staff training day was used to promote gay rights.”
———
Most likely no one would have known about their faith or cared what it was if they had just had the courtesy to keep their mouths shut about it. I never cared what my co-worker’s religion was until they just had to belabor me with it. Same with their politics. Once they opened those doors though, they were fair game for my ‘ridicule’ which was generally no more than a reasoned argument in opposition. Still, any opposition was too much for some of them. I’m sure they too felt ridiculed.
Sounds to me like the examples you provide are people who met verbal resistance, lost the debate and are sore losers.
To be fair though I’d probably never meet a Mormon without immediately asking to see the magic underwear, I’d just have to go there as a reflex. 🙂
Visiting a blog, coming in all cussy/loud and having nothing better that ‘shove it’ by way of a rebuttal argument is unacceptable in normal blog society. Dial it back or nobody will play with you.
yoseh:
“Shove it wear it hurts mespo.”
********************
Well it hurts when I read illiterate posts by ideologues bent on hellfire and damnation. Christians Mocked? Ignored? They certainly should be familiar with that approach to religious differences since they most likely invented the methodology. Tsk, tsk. Tell me where does it say or is implied in the Britain’s unwritten Constitution that a person may be free from public ridicule for believing in delusions? Wonder how the Brits treat astrologers or followers of Zeus? Get back to me on that won’t you yoseh? I am readying a new charity for this tormented (oops they like that, they call it sacrificing for the deity) group called “March of Fools.”
Dem Leadership Moves to Kill Photo Amendment, war between moderates & liberals looms.
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership is moving to strip the Lieberman-Graham amendment blocking the release of detainee photos from the supplemental appropriations bill now in conference.
One senior staffer on Capitol Hill angrily tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that “the conference on the supplemental may drop the photo amendment to appease the House Democratic Caucus.” Indeed, as David Rogers reported in the Politico this morning:
“Obama himself has argued that the pictures should not be released, and the administration gave its tacit blessing to the Senate language when it was inserted — without a roll call vote last month — by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent. At a party whip meeting Thursday, top House Democrats warned the language must come out if Obama is to get his IMF funds.”
“They (Democrats) certainly miscalculated on this pictures thing. I don’t know how the hell they thought that would work. The IMF drives away Americans. The pictures drive away the even the liberals you need. You have to choose.” said a top Democrat.
It looks like House Democrats have made their choice, and it’s a choice that would endanger the lives of U.S. troops rather than risk a compromise with Republicans on IMF funding. According to this source, Lieberman and Graham will “lead a fight to restore the amendment” in the event that Pelosi and her allies remove it from the final bill, but the Obama administration will need to insert itself into the debate if this matter is to be properly resolved. As Senator Lieberman said on the floor of the Senate last week, “nothing less than the safety of our military servicemen and women is at stake.”
British Study: Christians risk rejection and discrimination for their faith
Christians are facing discrimination at work, and ridicule and rejection at home, according to new research.
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones
June 5, 2009
Telegraph Breaking News
The first poll of Britain’s churchgoers, carried out for The Sunday Telegraph, found that thousands of them believe they are being turned down for promotion because of their faith.
One in five said that they had faced opposition at work because of their beliefs.
The findings suggest a growing hostility towards religion in this country, which has been highlighted by a series of clashes between churchgoers and their employers.
Church leaders, including the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, have urged Christians to “wake up” and defend their beliefs after the suspension of Caroline Petrie, a community nurse, for offering to pray for a patient.
Churchgoers interviewed in the ComRes poll said that they are already facing discrimination at work.
As many as 44 per cent said they had been mocked by neighbours or colleagues for being a Christian, and 29 per cent said they had been ignored or excluded for the same reason.
They also claimed that they are being discriminated against at work, with 25 per cent saying they had been turned down for promotion due to their faith. The same number said they had been reprimanded or cautioned at work for sharing their faith.
There has been a series of cases over recent months featuring Christians who have been suspended after expressing their religious views, including a teacher who complained that a staff training day was used to promote gay rights.
yoseh:
“GOD Damn Obama is NOT going to allow the destruction of Israel. He can go to Hell.”
***********
Seems to me the Israelis are doing a pretty good job of insuring that outcome themselves. As consolation, they make take all of us with them. What is it about the mid-Eastern mind that requires blood to appease old wounds? Would you destroy yourselves and your children to prove the divine sanction of your cause? I can think of no better definition of religious insanity.
GOD Damn Obama is NOT going to allow the destruction of Israel. He can go to Hell.
Military wife unhappy with Obama
I’ve heard this line before, that the President wants to end the war in Iraq means that he doesn’t support the troops. This is stupidity at its finest. Why are people that can’t assemble enough intelligence to see that ending a bs war (of choice) may actually give their loved ones on the front lines a better chance of surviving it, even part of the dialog?
carl wrote:
1, June 5, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I called my Washington DC Representative’s office today asking for a stafing job and said “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would reach better conclusions than a Latino or Black woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
The staffer called me a racist and said I would never be considered for a staff job in Washington DC with that attitude.
____________
carl,
You are a liar, a plagiarist, or both.
Carl,
Keep dreaming. You do know of course that Zogby is a Republican pollster and that his polls rate at the bottom in accuracy. Face it, you guys lost because you were incompetent and were in it only to help the haves and not the American people. You supported people who arguably committed treason and rather than realizing your mistake, your ego is too fragile to take it, you soldier on in a lost cause whose major aim was to enrich the already rich and fool the religious zealots into believing that Republican=Christian. In fact today’s Republican Party=immorality/greed.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/119393/Americans-Oppose-Closing-Gitmo-Moving-Prisoners.aspx
June 3, 2009
Americans Oppose Closing Gitmo and Moving Prisoners to U.S.
Public does not believe prison has weakened U.S. national security
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ — By a better than 2-to-1 margin, Americans are opposed to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison that houses terror suspects. Additionally, Americans express even more widespread opposition to the idea of moving the prisoners to prisons in their own states if Guantanamo is closed.
Obama’s Trouble With Independent Voters Deepening
Friday, June 05, 2009
U.S. News & World Report
Paul Bedard
Pollster John Zogby regularly updates our Obamameter.
Each week, Zogby uses his polling, expert analysis, and interaction with major players to come up with a rating of between 1 and 100. Unlike his polls, the Obamameter is his judgment on the performance of the president once multiple factors are considered.
In this week’s Obamameter, Zogby says that the president was hit hard by former Vice President Dick Cheney’s rap on Guantánamo Bay policies and the concerns about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
Also, he’s facing troubles winning over independents at a pace far greater than the previous four months. Could this be the wake up call the Right has been saying is bubbling up in America?
I called my Washington DC Representative’s office today asking for a stafing job and said “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would reach better conclusions than a Latino or Black woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
The staffer called me a racist and said I would never be considered for a staff job in Washington DC with that attitude.
There is a dead link “here” at the end of the paragraph reproduced below:
“The Sotomayor documents also reveal that her controversial comment about Latina judges giving superior opinions to white males was not a one time slip — but used repeatedly by her in speeches, here.”
Does anyone have an estimate for the percent of federal court judges who are Latina’s, white males?
When the playing field is actually level I’ll get excited about the kind of reactionary organization Judge Sotomayer belongs to. We aren’t there yet so it’s a non-issue to me also.
NBC’s ass-kissing of Obama too much even for Jon Stewart
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=229009&title=the-real-world-d.c.
Jon forgot to show Brian Williams bowing to Obama at the end of the day.
Military moral is at a 10 year low according to Stars & Stripes.
Spies arrested -State Department