wow. funny how i didn't hear a single shithead claim bush pandered to hispanics by replacing the whitest guy on the planet, john ashcroft, with roberto gonzales.
bush was praised by both sides of the shit-spectrum for appointing people like rice, powell and gonzales..
i wish the republicans would relax here. it's not like Sonia Sotomayor is another robert bork:
bork had loser written all over him...
3 comments:
I don't like Limbaugh, either, but the Republicans have a legitimate gripe about this woman as a supreme court nominee:
Her "legal realism" -- which is based up the idea that individual "experiences" shape legal decisions -- flies against the rationalism of the American legal system: good judges are supposed to minimize preconceived ideas (which is what she means by experience = preconceived ideas). Logically, that would make her an activist judge.
"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."
What's that supposed to mean? I'm a second generation Filipino, and I always find it funny how people never pick this up: when people refer to the "white man" -- blacks, in particular -- they're referring to the white liberal. That's why I don't understand the S. quote.
-HW
you're trying to tell me that anton scalia hasn't publicly stated that religion is a big influence on his decisions? "activist judges" is just a republican buzzword. it's human nature to allow your life experiences to shape your opinions. i mean, it was a bunch of "activist judges" who allowed women and blacks to vote..
not every pick can be as robotic as john "the cyborg" roberts...
With religion it's difficult, since many Judeo-Christian principles are embedded within the Constitution -- i.e., the Christian valuation of the dignity of INDIVIDUAL life. That's not necessarily a preconceived idea, rather an operative principle. A truth is not the same thing as an idea.
I'm not suggesting that someone can empty out their heads of everything they know, but their job is to minimize their own personal, subjective experiences -- not venerate them. This isn't about opinions, but sound moral reasoning aimed at truth. Truth(s) always undermine "experience".
Keep in mind that the so-called "activist judges"you talk about from the 20th century were amending the shortcomings of their own tradition. White liberals -- and by that I'm referring to classic liberals of the Enlightenment -- were the ones who really kicked off modern racism (take a look in the back of the "Portable Enlightenment Reader).
This current progressive belief -- which has been pushed down peoples' throats since Obama's election -- that that liberalism has always been the vanguard of racial justice is an outright lie: secular liberals, in the context of Western history, have been perhaps the most oppressive towards blacks and other minority groups. Fortunately black scholars know this. But I only bring this up because so many whites think that the "white man" generalization made by S. is not relevant to tjavascript:void(0)hem.
--HW
-HW
Post a Comment