Suddenly it's OK to call a judicial nominee a racist

	May 29, 2009
Suddenly it's OK to call a judicial nominee a racist by Jamison Foser When the nation learned in 2005 that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito had belonged to a Princeton University alumni organization that advocated a cap on the number of women and minorities allowed at Princeton, the news media quickly circled the wagons to protect the Bush nominee. When Alito was asked by Senate Democrats about his membership in the organization -- which he touted while applying for a job in the Reagan administration -- the media denounced them for going too far. The merest hint of a suggestion of an implication that Alito was a member of a racist organization was shouted down as an unfair slander; Democrats were pilloried for making Alito's wife cry with their inappropriate questions (though Mrs. Alito didn't actually start crying until Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham took to the microphone). Gloria Borger, for example, said that the pertinent question was not whether Alito agreed with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton's clearly racist and sexist stance on university admissions, but "whether the Democrats took this a step too far today." Katie Couric added: "Too much to take: Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's wife driven to tears after Democrats question his integrity. Did they go too far?" The media consensus that Democrats went "too far" in questioning Alito continues to this day. Fox News' Megyn Kelly recently claimed that during Alito's confirmation hearings, his wife was "crying hysterically after Ted Kennedy made her cry." So it seems the news media treat even a suggestion that a Supreme Court nominee might be guilty of involvement in a bigoted organization as a vile slur. Even if the nominee touted his membership in a group that sought to limit the number of women and minorities accepted into his alma mater. Even then, such questions are treated as inappropriate and abusive scrutiny that have no place in civil discourse. As long, that is, as the nominee in question is a conservative white male, nominated by a conservative white male president. But as we learned this week, if the nominee is a progressive Latina nominated by a progressive African-American president, you can just come right out and call her a racist -- based on nothing more than a distorted quote and a ruling nobody has read -- and the media will take you seriously. They will amplify your complaints. Far from denouncing you for going "too far," they will pretend that your false descriptions of her comments are accurate. Eight years ago, Sonia Sotomayor said that she would hope that in judging cases involving discrimination, a Latina woman would reach a better decision than would a white man who hasn't had her experiences. Past Republican Supreme Court nominees like Samuel Alito have said similar things, and it really isn't particularly controversial. But if you change what Sotomayor said a bit -- drop a word here and there, change a few others -- to pretend that she said Latinas are better than white men ... well, that's racist! And that's just what the right wing did. Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and other conservative media figures quickly insisted that Sotomayor is a racist and a bigot. They even compared her to David Duke. (Now, at first, you might think that if Rush Limbaugh is calling someone a racist, he must mean it as a compliment. But if you listen to his tone of voice and the full context, it's clear he means it as an insult.) And the media, particularly cable news, took their complaints seriously. They quoted them, and they adopted the right's inaccurate shorthand version of Sotomayor's comments in order to explain why the conservatives were upset. News reports that explained that conservatives are distorting Sotomayor's comments were few and far between; reports that noted that conservatives have said similar things in the past were even rarer. Just a few years ago, the mere suggestion that Samuel Alito should explain his membership in an organization that sought to limit the number of women and minorities at Princeton was met with outrage by the media. How dare the Democrats! They've gone too far! But now, with conservatives explicitly calling Sotomayor a "racist" based on manufactured evidence, the media can't even be bothered to point out that they are distorting her comments. Instead, the conservative complaints get taken seriously, as though they are a reasonable and fair interpretation of what Sotomayor said. So it seems that lying about a Latina in order to call her a racist is just fine, as far as much of the media is concerned. Just don't you dare question why a white male belonged to an organization that sought to keep women and minorities out of his college. That's over the line.

Limbaugh Refers To Native Americans As "Clowns"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905290031 This hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by "these clowns," the Native Americans By Simon Maloy Rush got the final hour started with "one more thing" about Sonia Sotomayor -- a mental exercise: "She said that because she is a Latina, because she is a Hispanic woman, that she'd -- because of the richness of that experience, she'd be a better judge than a white guy. What if she had said because of her rich experiences as a Latina, as a Hispanic woman, that she'd be a better judge than a black guy? What do you think the reaction to that might have been?" Doesn't matter what race you shoehorn in there, that's not what she said. What Sotomayor did say, while discussing the importance of judicial diversity in race and sex discrimination cases, was: "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's not too different from some praise John Yoo heaped on Clarence Thomas, or comments Thomas made himself. Nonetheless, Limbaugh broke out the racial shoehorn to reinforce whatever point he was trying to make, and in the process insulted Native Americans: "If we want to talk about richness of experience, there's a group of people that were here before we got here, gang: the Indians, the Native Americans, the chiefs, the redskins. I don't see any of them being put up on the courts. Talk about a richness of experience -- hell, these clowns beat Custer. They have cred. You don't see them being put up, do you?" Then it was time for one more "one more thing" about Sotomayor, as Rush read extensively from National Review's Andy McCarthy's blog post on how Sotomayor wouldn't qualify as a juror, let alone a Supreme Court justice. Rush, of course, loved every sentence of it. Personally, we're more interested in whether McCarthy has finally figured out whether Bill Ayers ghost-wrote Obama's memoir for him. Rush then said he was moving on to other thi -- no, wait! There was yet another "one more thing" about Sotomayor as Rush read extensively from a Washington Post article this morning on how the "White House scrambled yesterday to assuage worries from liberal groups about Judge Sonia Sotomayor's scant record on abortion rights, delivering strong but vague assurances that the Supreme Court nominee agrees with President Obama's belief in constitutional protections for a woman's right to the procedure." Rush said that "the pro-abort crowd" cares only about her abortion record because they're afraid that she could become a Souter. Rush also got around to regurgitating an already-passé smear of Sotomayor: "I'll tell you, there's another concern they've got, and you've seen this being reported if you've been paying any attention: She's not an intellectual heavyweight. They are thus afraid that Scalia and Thomas and Roberts might get her mind right. They're worried about this." Finally, there were no more "one more things" about Sotomayor as Rush moved on to a Miami Herald article on how, according to a recent poll, two-thirds of residents of coastal states are not concerned about hurricanes. This won't do for the media, said Rush, who want everyone scared to death. Rush then warned people from Maine to Texas to get ready, you're going to be deluged with footage of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina until you're officially concerned and blame Bush for it. After the break, Rush read from a Washington Times article on how "Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day." Rush's takeaway from this article was that since someone set up a New Black Panther page on Obama's website (on which anyone could set up such a page) endorsing Obama, Attorney General Holder probably concluded that you don't put your earliest supporters in jail. Rush squeezed in a quick call before the break, this one from a man who said Rush is an "inspiration" and that we'll all be successful if we live our lives according to Limbaugh's rules. We sure do love "Open Line Friday!" After the break, Rush was very upset with NBC for their online article on the "8 health risks in your own backyard." He was so upset, in fact, that he read the entire article in his snide, mocking voice, and then enumerated the many things in the house that can kill you. From there it was a smooth segue into the latest Limbaugh song-parody masterpiece, "Obama Can," sung to the tune of "The Candyman." One more break and Rush came back reading from a Huffington Post article on the four families featured in Obama's pre-election 30-minute television ad, and how "only one of those folks has seen anything resembling a rescue -- and it wasn't because of any government program." Rush said he didn't need the story to know this, just look at the Labor Department data. The economy shrank by an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the first quarter, and Obama hasn't done anything but make it worse. Rush closed the show with a couple of calls, the first from a woman who cryptically intoned that there is no racial division except by those who make money off of it. Rush says what's happened today is that he's been scolded by all the learned people on his side on how we should raise the discourse, but guess what? The Sotomayor "racist" stuff is all over MSNBC. The White House allowed it to fester, said Rush, and that was a political mistake. Rush's last caller said that Sen. Claire McCaskill was interviewed on a Missouri radio station, and when they brought up Sotomayor's "wise Latina" statement, McCaskill misunderstood who said what and was awfully offended until she was told that Sotomayor said it. Rush said he was going to play that audio, but people were getting sick of Sotomayor stuff. You're telling us ... Anyway, that's it for the day and the week here at the Wire. We hope you all have a great weekend, we'll see you back here on Monday, and, as always, Media Matters' ever-expanding Limbaugh archives are available for your perusal. Highlights from Hour 3 Outrageous comments LIMBAUGH: She said that because she is a Latina, because she is a Hispanic woman, that she'd -- because of the richness of that experience, she'd be a better judge than a white guy. What if she had said because of her rich experiences as a Latina, as an Hispanic woman, that she'd be a better judge than a black guy? What do you think the reaction to that might have been? You think there might have been some people even on her -- you think the White House would have tamped that down pretty quick? [...] LIMBAUGH: If we want to talk about richness of experience, there's a group of people that were here before we got here, gang: the Indians, the Native Americans, the chiefs, the redskins. I don't see any of them being put up on the courts. Talk about a richness of experience -- hell, these clowns beat Custer. They have cred. You don't see them being put up, do you? [...] LIMBAUGH: I'll tell you, there's another concern they've got, and you've seen this being reported if you've been paying any attention: She's not an intellectual heavyweight. They are thus afraid that Scalia and Thomas and Roberts might get her mind right. They're worried about this.

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

Tweet from Twitterrific

Gingrich, Beck, Limbaugh -- white males of privilege. When that
privilege is threatened, they cry reverse racism. http://tinyurl.com/ku95um

http://twitter.com/buzzflash/status/1952059967

Sent from my iPhone

Blown circuits: Rove levels attack on Sotomayor based on false claim that she and Alito were colleagues

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905280037 On May 26, Karl Rove claimed that while reviewing Samuel Alito's record for a possible Supreme Court nomination, he "got wind of" allegations that 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- who Rove claimed was Alito's "colleague" on the 2nd Circuit -- "was combative, opinionated, argumentative, and as a result, was not able to sort of help create a consensus opinion on important issues." In fact, contrary to Rove's claim that Alito was Sotomayor's "colleague on the [2nd Circuit] court," Alito served on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- a fact that seriously undermines Rove's anonymously sourced allegations about Sotomayor's temperament. On the May 26 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Rove said: We know from her record on the 2nd Court of Appeals that she's not a particularly effective colleague. I first got wind of this when Sam Alito, who was her colleague on the court while we were reviewing his record, it -- you know, people who were familiar with the workings of the court said that she was combative, opinionated, argumentative, and as a result, was not able to sort of help create a consensus opinion on important issues. Later in the interview, host Greta Van Susteren asked, "What did Justice Alito say about working with her?" Rove replied: Well, I'm not going to comment on what he said about her, because I didn't hear him say anything specifically about her, but when I was talking to people about the 2nd Court of Appeals -- for example, look, as you know, justices circulate opinions and -- to their colleagues to get their feedback and to act as, you know, sort of a prompt for discussions when they meet in chambers. Well -- in conference, excuse me -- what she would do is she would mark them up like she was your English school teacher and -- with your typos and misspellings and other words that she wanted to have changed, and send them back to her colleagues -- not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself with your colleagues. Rove's anonymously sourced allegations follow a pattern in which media figures repeat anonymous smears about Sotomayor's temperament and intellect. From the May 26 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren: VAN SUSTEREN: Not to take away from her accomplishments and not to sort of poison the process, but to what extent the fact that she is Hispanic does this become -- you know, is this a partial political decision or a total political decision? ROVE: Well, they clearly said that they were sensitive to the criticism that they've received from Hispanic groups for the failure of the Obama administration to make more Latino appointments. So they not only get to put -- appoint a woman, but a Latino woman, and this is obviously a political advantage to them. They've gone out of their way to emphasize that. What's interesting to me, though, is the question of how effective she's going to be on the Supreme Court. We know that David Souter was a cipher. We know from her record on the 2nd Court of Appeals that she's not a particularly effective colleague. I first got wind of this when Sam Alito, who was her colleague on the court while we were reviewing his record, it -- you know, people who were familiar with the workings of the court said that she was combative, opinionated, argumentative, and as a result, was not able to sort of help create a consensus opinion on important issues. VAN SUSTEREN: Is it consensus opinion we're looking for or do we want some independent thought? Do we also, I mean, in an ideal situation, do we want -- also want someone who's, you know, strong in his own or his own convictions as how the law should be properly applied? [...] VAN SUSTEREN: What did Justice Alito say about working with her? ROVE: Well, I'm not going to comment on what he said about her, because I didn't hear him say anything specifically about her, but when I was talking to people about the 2nd Court of Appeals -- for example, look, as you know, justices circulate opinions and -- to their colleagues to get their feedback and to act as, you know, sort of a prompt for discussions when they meet in chambers. Well -- in conference, excuse me -- what she would do is she would mark them up like she was your English school teacher and -- with your typos and misspellings and other words that she wanted to have changed, and send them back to her colleagues -- not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself with your colleagues. Rather than saying, "Oh, well, I thought you had an interesting legal argument here, and I'd like to talk to you more about this here." She was acting like sort of the schoolmarm. We've gotten a taste of this in the clips that we've seen, for example, at the Duke Law Conference where she says, we write policy; we're not supposed to say it but we do write law, you know, which is not exactly how the American people view what judges ought to be about. But you get a sense of this sort of brashness that, sometimes, in the close quarters of a conference, can rub other justices the wrong way. VAN SUSTEREN: You make me nervous about the times I correct people for grammatical errors. I'm not going to do it anymore. ROVE: Well, you should. VAN SUSTEREN: I'm going to take that as a -- ROVE: No, no, no, you should. But if they're colleagues, if they're equals, I mean, you've got to be very careful about [unintelligible] getting out your red pen and marking it up like you're their English teacher. Contact: Fox News Channel FOX News Channel 1-888-369-4762 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Contact: On The Record with Greta Van Susteren On The Record with Greta Van Susteren

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

Berkshire Hathaway's Sokol: "No Green Shoots" from Calculated Risk

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/05/berkshire-hathaways-sokol-no-green.html

From Reuters: MidAmerican's Sokol sees US housing staying weak (ht Alexander, Cord)

David Sokol, chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc's MidAmerican Energy Holdings and a contender to succeed Warren Buffett, warned that the U.S. housing market still has a ways to go before bottoming out.
...
"As we look at the economy, I have to be honest: we're not seeing the green shoots," Sokol said ... "We think the official statistics of 10 to 12 months' backlog is actually nearly twice that amount," ...

"There is an enormous shadow backlog of about-to-be foreclosed homes and of individuals who need to sell but have time, and there are already six (for sale) signs on their block," he said.

... "It will be be mid-2011 before we see a balancing of the existing home sales market." He defined "balanced" as a six-month backlog.

Escalating Suicides Shut Down Army Base from Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20090528_escalating_suicides_shut_down_army_base/

Fort Campbell, a military base in Kentucky known for having dealt with the most suicides at any army base this year, has halted routine duties for three days in order to seek out and aid distressed soldiers who may be thinking of taking their own lives. In the months of January through March alone, the base has seen one suicide per week.

The Kentucky New Era:

"But last week we had two. Two in a week," Townsend said. "This is not a place where Fort Campbell and the 101st Airborne Division want to be. "We don't want to lead the Army in this statistic."

[...] Army leaders are developing new guidance for commanders to help installations like Fort Campbell deal with rising suicide rates. Across the Army, suicides from January through March rose to a reported 56 - 22 confirmed and 34 still being investigated and pending confirmation.

Frequent deployments by the division since 2001 have contributed to the stress soldiers feel at Fort Campbell, said Col. Ken Brown, the head of chaplains for the base.

Read More

Wash. Times makes discredited claim that Sotomayor policy-making remark "runs counter to ... American legal tradition"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905280026 In a May 27 editorial, The Washington Times asserted, "Speaking at Duke University Law School in 2005, Judge [Sonia] Sotomayor said the 'Court of Appeals is where policy is made.' On its face, the assertion runs counter to more than 200 years of American legal tradition holding that courts are merely meant to interpret existing law, not actively make policy choices." In fact, the context of Sotomayor's comments makes clear she was simply explaining the difference between district and appeals courts after being asked to contrast the experiences in clerkships at the two levels. Moreover, Sotomayor's explanation is in line with federal appellate courts' "policy making" role as described by the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005) and explained by numerous legal experts. University of Texas-Austin law professor Frank B. Cross has similarly written that "[t]he circuit courts play by far the greatest legal policymaking role in the United States judicial system." Indeed, according to Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Sotomayor's remark "seems to be nothing more than an observation that, as a practical matter, many policy disputes are resolved in the federal courts of appeals. This is an indisputably true observation." Adler has been honored by the Federalist Society, advised the Cato Supreme Court Review, and strongly supported the nominations of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito Jr. From Adler's May 3 post on the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy: A video of Sonia Sotomayor, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit widely viewed as a short-listed for the Supreme Court, is making the blogospheric rounds. In the clip, she says that the courts of appeals are "where policy is made." Some seem to think that this is a damning statement and evidence of closet "judicial activism." I don't. As presented in the clip, it seems to be nothing more than an observation that, as a practical matter, many policy disputes are resolved in the federal courts of appeals. This is an indisputably true observation. Moreover, the fact that many policy disputes are resolved in federal appellate courts does not mean that judges are resolving those cases on policy grounds. Litigation over the interpretation or implementation of a federal statute will have significant policy implications -- and deciding the case will, in many instances, "make policy." But this is wholly consistent with the idea that a judge's responsibility is to interpret and apply the law without regard for those policy consequences. Further, given the context of Judge Sotomayor's remarks, it is totally understandable why some prospective employers would want to hire individuals who are exposed to these sorts of cases. So, in sum, I don't think the statement on this video clip is a big deal. Move along. Other legal experts have similarly stated that Sotomayor's comment is not controversial, as The Huffington Post and PolitiFact.com have noted. For instance, Hofstra University law professor Eric Freedman has reportedly said that Sotomayor's remark is "the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning" and "thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue." Supreme Court historian David Garrow has reportedly said, "What [Sotomayor] said there is simply the honest version of what any judge knows and realizes," adding, "To anyone who knows the intellectual history of judicial decision-making, she's just being honest, not activist." Further, Stony Brook University political science professor Jeffrey Segal has reportedly stated, "Of course they make policy. ... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy." In a separate article, The Huffington Post noted that Justice Antonin Scalia is among the "justices on the Supreme Court [who] have said the same thing and baked it into their judicial decisions." From the May 28 Huffington Post article: But, as it turns out, Sotomayor needn't worry about talking about how policy is made at the appeals level on videotape. Why, some justices on the Supreme Court have said the same thing and baked it into their judicial decisions. Like, say, noted leftist jurist Antonin Scalia, who, in the majority opinion of 2002 case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, wrote: This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of "representative government" might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular. In footnote 12, Scalia elaborated (emphasis added): Although Justice [John Paul] Stevens at times appears to agree with Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg's premise that the judiciary is completely separated from the enterprise of representative government, post, at 3 ("[E]very good judge is fully aware of the distinction between the law and a personal point of view"), he eventually appears to concede that the separation does not hold true for many judges who sit on courts of last resort, post, at 3 ("If he is not a judge on the highest court in the State, he has an obligation to follow the precedent of that court, not his personal views or public opinion polls"); post, at 3, n. 2. Even if the policy making capacity of judges were limited to courts of last resort, that would only prove that the announce clause fails strict scrutiny. "[I]f announcing one's views in the context of a campaign for the State Supreme Court might be" protected speech, post, at 3, n. 2, then-even if announcing one's views in the context of a campaign for a lower court were not protected speech, ibid.-the announce clause would not be narrowly tailored, since it applies to high- and low-court candidates alike. In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed. Justice Stevens has repeatedly expressed the view that a settled course of lower court opinions binds the highest court. See, e.g., Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 74 (1990) (concurring opinion); McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 376--377 (1987) (dissenting opinion). In his 2007 book, Decision Making in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Cross wrote: "The circuit courts play by far the greatest legal policymaking role in the United States judicial system. ... [C]ircuit court decisions are almost always about defining the law, and they set binding precedents for the multistate area that the circuit covers." From Decision Making in the U.S. Court of Appeals: While most public reportage and even scholarly research deals with the U.S. Supreme Court, the circuit courts are much more important in setting and enforcing the law of the United States. The Supreme Court now decides only seventy-five cases a year and cannot address, much less resolve, most legal questions facing the nation. By contrast, the circuit courts resolve more than fifty thousand cases a year. Each of those decisions is binding precedent within the geographic bounds of the circuit and typically influences the application of the law even outside those bounds. When the circuit courts agree, they essentially establish the law for the entire nation. When the circuits disagree, they create a circuit split, under which the law is unsettled and geographically variant. In either situation, the circuit courts set the legal ground rules for citizens. They are the court of last resort for most litigants. Fewer than 15% of circuit court decisions are even appealed to the Supreme Court and fewer than 2% of those appeals are taken by the high court. Thus, in large measure, it is the circuit courts that create U.S. law. They represent the true iceberg, of which the Supreme Court is but the most visible tip. The circuit courts play by far the greatest legal policymaking role in the United States judicial system. The district courts, as trial courts, hear far more disputes than do the circuit courts but district court decisions are heavily fact based and jurisdictionally limited in effect, and they do not set the significant legal precedents that make up the law. By contrast, circuit court decisions are almost always about defining the law, and they set binding precedents for the multistate area that the circuit covers. These decisions are also commonly used as persuasive precedent by courts in states outside the circuit's jurisdiction and even by the Supreme Court. Although an individual Supreme Court decision is more important than a corresponding individual circuit court decision, the very limited docket of the Supreme Court leaves U.S. law largely to the judgment of the circuits. (Page 2) Contact: The Washington Times Washington Times Washington Times 3600 New York Ave NE Washington, DC 20002-1947 (202) 636-3000

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

Fox Nation baselessly claims Sotomayor "Wants to Ban Guns"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905280030 In a May 28 headline, The Fox Nation baselessly claimed that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "Wants to Ban Guns." The headline linked to a May 28 CNSNews.com article that made no mention of Sotomayor expressing or indicating a desire to "ban guns." Rather, CNS News reported that Sotomayor was part of a three-judge 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that cited Supreme Court precedent in ruling that "the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments." As CNS News noted, in the case Maloney v. Cuomo, the Second Circuit "cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois," which found that "the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government" -- not state governments. As Media Matters for America has noted, media conservatives have previously engaged in similar fearmongering by claiming without basis that President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) want to "ban" or "confiscate" guns. From The Fox Nation on May 28:

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

CNN Clip: Not Taking Shit From Right-Wing Gas Bags On "Law and Order" Issues from Open Left - Front Page

http://www.openleft.com/diary/13526/cnn-clip-on-not-taking-shit-from-rightwing-gas-bags-on-law-and-order

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQBE-kVxMy0

I appeared on CNN this weekend to debate right-wing gasbag Chris Plante about the ongoing debate over torture, Gitmo, detainees and President Obama's effort to curtail the Bush administration's most egregious legal transgressions. You can watch the debate here - it's about the most heated television debate I've ever taken part in.

As you'll see, Plante forwards former Vice President Dick Cheney's most tired, most discredited lies about torture supposedly saving "thousands of lives" - and when confronted with hard reporting exposing Cheney's dishonesty, Plante pulls the attack the messenger routine, saying you basically can't believe anything you read in any newspaper.

The facts, of course, speak for themselves - CIA officials have acknowledged that there is no verifiable evidence that torture stopped any terrorist attacks, or produced "actionable" intelligence, and certainly no evidence that torture tactics produced anything better or more valuable than legal methods of interrogation.

But Plante - and the right wing - aren't interested in facts. They are interested in demagoguery that aims to tap into the Jack Bauer Theory of National Security - ie. the idea that it's AOK to break laws because doing so will save the United States from certain peril. Suddenly, "law and order" Republicans don't care about law and order.

After Plante repeats his talking points for the third time, I kinda went off. I'm not sure I should have gotten so in his face, but frankly, I'm sick and tired of right-wing No Talent Ass Clowns using the media to push their dishonest hyper-nationalist bullshit that seeks to portray lawbreaking as strong and patriotic, and respect for the law as somehow weak and traitorous. Sometimes it's important to simply call them out and take it to them - and that's what I tried to do.

Watch the clip here - I think you will find it entertaining.

‘Censored’ Abu Ghraib photographs show rape of detainees. from Think Progress

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/28/abu-ghraib-rape/

Earlier this month, President Obama announced that he would ban the release of photographs showing torture. While Obama said at the time that the pictures were "not particularly sensational," the London Telegraph reports that "at least one picture" from Abu Ghraib "shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee":

Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President's decision, adding: "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency. [...]

Among the graphic statements…is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: "I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn't covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid's ***…. and the female soldier was taking pictures." [...]

Three detainees, including the alleged victim, refer to the use of a phosphorescent tube in the sexual abuse and another to the use of wire, while the victim also refers to part of a policeman's "stick" all of which were apparently photographed.

Myths and falsehoods surrounding the Sotomayor nomination

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905270049 In covering the announcement by President Obama that he intends to nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, the media have advanced numerous myths and falsehoods about Sotomayor. In some cases, the media assert the falsehoods themselves; in others, they report unchallenged the claims of others. In addition to evaluating these claims on their merits, the media should also consistently report that conservatives were reportedly very clear about their intentions to oppose Obama's nominee, no matter who it was. Their attacks must be assessed in the context of their reported plans to use the confirmation process to "help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats"; "build the conservative movement"; provide "a massive teaching moment for America"; "prepare the great debate with a view toward Senate elections in 2010 and the presidency"; and "hurt conservative Democrats." Media Matters for America has compiled a list of myths and falsehoods that have emerged or resurfaced since Sotomayor's nomination was first reported. MYTH: Sotomayor advocated legislating from the bench Media including The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC have misrepresented Sotomayor's statement -- during a February 25, 2005, Duke University School of Law forum -- that the "court of appeals is where policy is made." These media outlets have advanced assertions that Sotomayor was advocating that judges make policy from the bench, or in the case of NBC's Matt Lauer and Chuck Todd, falsely characterized Sotomayor's comment themselves. But the context of her comments makes clear that she was simply explaining the difference between district courts and appeals courts after being asked about the differences between clerkships at the two levels, an explanation in line with federal appellate courts' "policy making" role described by the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005). From Sotomayor's remarks: SOTOMAYOR: The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, "I don't care about the next step," and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, "We'll worry about that when we get to it" -- look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that's the differences -- the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time. According to NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams, "[E]ven some conservatives and followers of strict constructionism have said that [Sotomayor] was only stating the obvious: that trial judges, district court judges, decide only the cases before them, and that appeals courts, because they are the, you know, above the other courts, do set policy; they do make precedent that governs the other courts." Indeed, legal experts have stated that Sotomayor's comment is not controversial, as The Huffington Post and PolitiFact.com have noted. In the words of Hofstra University law professor Eric Freedman, Sotomayor's remark was "the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning" and "thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue." MYTH: Sotomayor said, "Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges" Media figures have misrepresented a remark that Sotomayor made in a speech published in 2002, claiming that she suggested, in the words of Fox News' Megyn Kelly, "that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges." Further advancing the falsehood, numerous media figures have asserted that Sotomayor made a "racist statement." In fact, when Sotomayor asserted, "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," she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining race and sex discrimination cases. Indeed, as Media Matters has noted, former Bush Justice Department lawyer 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. MYTH: Sotomayor's Supreme Court reversal rate is "high" In a May 27 article headlined "Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court," The Washington Times uncritically quoted Conservative Women for America president Wendy Wright saying that Sotomayor's reversals -- which the Times reported as three of five cases, or 60 percent -- were "high." Similarly, on May 26, Congressional Quarterly Today uncritically quoted (subscription required) Wendy Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, claiming that Sotomayor "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." In fact, contrary to the claim that a reversal rate of 60 percent is "high," data compiled by SCOTUSblog since 2004 show that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year. MYTH: Liberal judges like Sotomayor are "activist[s]" CNN's Gloria Borger and Bill Schneider have uncritically repeated Republican claims that Sotomayor is -- in Schneider's words -- a "liberal activist," and in doing so have also advanced the baseless conservative claim that judicial activism is solely a "liberal" practice. But at least two studies -- looking at two different sets of criteria -- have found that the most "conservative" Supreme Court justices have been among the biggest judicial activists. A 2005 study by Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz and Yale Law School graduate Chad Golder indicated that among Supreme Court justices at that time, those most frequently labeled "conservative" were among the most frequent practitioners of at least one brand of judicial activism -- the tendency to strike down statutes passed by Congress. Indeed, Gewirtz and Golder found that Thomas "was the most inclined" to do so, "voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws." Additionally, a recently published study by Cass R. Sunstein (recently named by Obama to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) and University of Chicago law professor Thomas Miles used a different measurement of judicial activism -- the tendency of judges to strike down decisions by federal regulatory agencies. Sunstein and Miles found that by this definition, the Supreme Court's "conservative" justices were the most likely to engage in "judicial activism," while the "liberal" justices were most likely to exercise "judicial restraint." Moreover, according to Politico's Jeanne Cummings, "Sotomayor's history suggests the very sort of judicial restraint that conservatives clamor for in a nominee." She added: Whatever her personal ideology, she ruled against an abortion-rights group challenging [President] Bush's policy of banning overseas groups that take federal funds from conducting abortions. In another case, she ruled in favor of abortion protesters. "She applied the law even-handedly and come out with the right decision," said Bruce Hausknecht, a judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, a large and influential voice on conservative social issues. Sotomayor's rulings on religious liberty issues also have pleased the conservative community. "It would have been a lot easier to communicate to the base why Judge Wood would not have made a good nominee," said Hausknecht. "With Sotomayor, we have to take a wait-and-see attitude." MYTH: Sotomayor was "[s]oft on New Jersey [c]orruption" In a May 26 post to his National Review Online "the campaign spot" blog, Jim Geraghty misleadingly suggested that as a U.S. district judge, Sotomayor was "[s]oft on New Jersey [c]orruption" due to the sentencing and financial penalty she issued in 1995 to Joseph C. Salema in a municipal bond kickback scheme. Geraghty cited the book The Soprano State: New Jersey's Culture of Corruption, by Bob Ingle and Sandy McClure, who wrote that "Salema could have spent up to 10 years behind bars" and that Sotomayor "instead sentenced him to six months in a halfway house and six months of home detention, fined him $10,000 and gave him 1400 hours of community service." Geraghty commented: "A $10,000 fine to someone who pleads guilty to a federal charge of sharing in more than $200,000 in kickbacks. Boy, that will teach him!" But in declaring Sotomayor "[s]oft," Geraghty ignored the fact that prosecutors reportedly sought a prison term of only one year and that Salema reportedly paid "a full restitution of $342,000" in a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). MYTH: New Haven firefighters case shows Sotomayor is an "activist" The media have advanced conservatives' claim that Sotomayor's position in the New Haven firefighters case, Ricci v. DeStefano, shows that she is an "activist" judge. For example, a May 26 Congressional Quarterly Today article quoted Long as saying that Sotomayor "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" and reported that Long "pointed to Sotomayor's participation in a 2nd Circuit discrimination case, Ricci v. DeStefano, in which a group of white New Haven, Conn., firefighters alleged they were unfairly denied promotions." In fact, Sotomayor agreed with four of her 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals colleagues that precedent compelled the decision in the case. Moreover, contrary to Long's suggestion that Sotomayor's decision shows that she is "far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court," Souter -- whom Sotomayor would replace -- reflected an understanding of the situation faced by the city of New Haven, asking counsel for the firefighters: "Why isn't the most reasonable reading of this set of facts a reading which is consistent with giving the city an opportunity, assuming good faith, to start again? ... [I]sn't that the only way to avoid the damned if you do, damned if you don't situation?" MYTH: Sotomayor lacks the intellect to be an effective justice Several media figures have repeated the charge that Sotomayor lacks the intellect to be an effective Supreme Court justice, often quoting only anonymous sources or no sources at all. For instance, CNN's John King said while reporting on Obama's nomination announcement, "[S]ome ... are voicing surprise at this because they view her as a highly competent and a highly qualified judge, but they do not believe that she was the most, shall we say, of the intellectual firebrands that the president had on his list, those who could go up against a [Antonin] Scalia, or an [Samuel] Alito on the court in the arguments." The Washington Post's Dana Milbank similarly stated: "As a legal mind, Sotomayor is described in portraits as competent, but no Louis Brandeis." However, Media Matters has identified law scholars and legal professionals who worked with Sotomayor who have described her as "highly intelligent" and even "brilliant." As Tom Goldstein noted on SCOTUSblog, "Opponents' first claim -- likely stated obliquely and only on background -- will be that Judge Sotomayor is not smart enough for the job" because "[t]he public expects Supreme Court Justices to be brilliant." Goldstein added: "The objective evidence is that Sotomayor is in fact extremely intelligent. Graduating at the top of the class at Princeton is a signal accomplishment. Her opinions are thorough, well-reasoned, and clearly written. Nothing suggests she isn't the match of the other Justices." Goldstein is a partner at Akin Gump Straus Hauer & Feldmann LLP and "co-head" of the firm's "litigation and Supreme Court practices" who "teaches Supreme Court Litigation at both Stanford and Harvard Law Schools." MYTH: Sotomayor is "domineering" and "a bit of a bully" Echoing a May 4 New Republic article by legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen, Fox News host Bill Hemmer and Supreme Court reporter Shannon Bream relied on anonymous sources that reportedly characterized Sotomayor as "domineering," sometimes "bogged down in marginal details," and "a bit of a bully." A CNN.com article similarly referenced "perceived ... concerns about her temperament." However, several of Rosen's sources were unnamed "former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit." Beyond allowing sources who are not identified to throw darts at Sotomayor, such citations of law clerks is problematic for a different reason, according to American University law professor Darren Hutchinson, who wrote, "[T]he use of clerks to determine whether a judge should receive a Supreme Court nomination is extremely problematic," because "[m]ost clerks have just graduated from law school, have never tried a case or practiced law, and do not have sufficient experience or knowledge of the law to make an informed assessment of a judge." MYTH: "Empathy" is code for "liberal activist" Media figures and outlets have focused on the purported controversy over Obama's May 1 statement that he would seek a replacement for Souter who demonstrates the quality of "empathy" and conservatives' criticism that Sotomayor, in the words of Long, "applies her feelings ... when deciding cases." Several media figures and outlets, including Fox News' Special Report and The Washington Post, have falsely suggested that Obama said that he will seek a Supreme Court nominee who demonstrates empathy rather than a commitment to follow the law. In fact, in the statement in question, Obama said that his nominee will demonstrate both. Other media have stated or advanced the claim that, in the words of a May 4 National Review editorial, "[e]mpathy is simply a codeword for an inclination toward liberal activism." But these media figures and outlets have ignored conservatives' history of stressing the importance of judges' possessing empathy or compassion. Indeed, during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, responding to Sen. Herb Kohl's (D-WI) question, "I'd like to ask you why you want this job?" Thomas stated in part: "I believe, Senator, that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does." Moreover, then-President George H.W. Bush cited Thomas' "great empathy" in his remarks announcing that he was nominating Thomas to serve on the Supreme Court. Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) similarly stated: "Though his skills as a lawyer and a judge are obvious, they are not, in my view, the only reason that this committee should vote to approve Judge Thomas's nomination. Just as important is his compassion and understanding of the impact that the Supreme Court has on the lives of average Americans." In his review of Thomas' 2007 memoir, My Grandfather's Son (HarperCollins), former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo touted the unique perspective that he said Thomas brings to the bench. Yoo wrote that 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. Additionally, several Republican then-senators, including Strom Thurmond (SC), Al D'Amato (NY), and Mike DeWine (OH), cited compassion as a qualification for judicial confirmation. For instance, during the confirmation hearings for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Thurmond stated that "compassion" was one of the "special qualifications I believe an individual should possess to serve on the Supreme Court," adding that "[w]hile a nominee must be firm in his or her decisions, they should show mercy when appropriate." Similarly, during the confirmation hearings for Justice Stephen Breyer, Thurmond said "compassion" was among "the special criteria which I believe an individual must possess to serve on the Supreme Court."

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.

Fox airs on-screen graphics featuring Sotomayor's college yearbook quote of Socialist Thomas

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905270032

During the May 27 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, while co-host Bill Hemmer interviewed Wendy Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, regarding Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Fox News featured a series of on-screen graphics noting that Sotomayor quoted Norman Thomas, a six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, in her Princeton University yearbook. According to a graphic included in a slideshow released by the White House, in her "Princeton '76 yearbook page," Sotomayor quoted Thomas' statement, "I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won." Neither Sotomayor's yearbook page nor Thomas was discussed during the segment.

From the White House slideshow:

From America's Newsroom:

 

Contact: Fox News Channel

FOX News Channel 1-888-369-4762 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036

Waterboarding Works! Conservative Recants After Being Tortured [Conversions] from Gawker

http://gawker.com/5271159/waterboarding-works-conservative-recants-after-being-tortured

Erich Muller, a rightwing Chicago shockjock known as "Mancow," recently agreed to be waterboarded to prove to all the big liberals that it's totally harmless and lasted all of six seconds. He appeared on Keith Olbermann's show to discuss how horribly misguided his views on waterboarding were previously.

We suppose it'd be easy to mock and ridicule "Mancow" here, as he does seem to be an extraordinarily massive tool, not even taking into consideration that he was one of the main guys spreading the "Obama is a closet Muslim" rumors during the election, but there's something truly admirable in a) being sufficiently curious and willing to undergo the procedure personally to truly see what it was like to be on the receiving end of a waterboarding, and b) appearing on the air with arguably the most unabashedly liberal host on television to profess how horribly wrong he'd been previously. So yeah, despite being a tool, "Mancow" deserves a tip of the cap, as does Olbermann for donating $10,000 to a support group for veterans in return for Muller going through with the waterboarding and then appearing on his show to discuss it.

During his appearance Muller said that his good friend Sean Hannity called him recently to hold fast to his belief that waterboarding is "still not torture," despite Muller's argument that it was "absolutely torture" and that he "would have confessed to anything to make it stop." He added, "I was willing to prove, and ready to prove, that this was a joke, and I was wrong. It was horrific. It was instantaneous. And look, I felt the effects for two days."

Again, we admire Muller for being a man and doing what he did, something his buddy Hannity promised to do a few weeks back but has yet to follow through on. And sadly we doubt he ever will.

Conservatives react to historic Supreme Court nominee by smearing Sotomayor as "racist," "bigot"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200905270013 Since President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, numerous conservative media figures have smeared her as a racist and a bigot. In doing so, these media figures have frequently cited -- and misrepresented -- remarks she made during a speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law, in which she asserted, "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." Specifically, Rush Limbaugh claimed Sotomayor is a "reverse racist"; radio host Mark Levin called her a "bigot"; and Glenn Beck claimed Sotomayor made "one of the most outrageous racist remarks I've heard. ... She sure sounds like a racist." As Media Matters for America has documented, media figures have misrepresented Sotomayor's Berkeley remarks. For example, Fox News host Megyn Kelly said that Sotomayor was claiming "that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges." In fact, Sotomayor was specifically discussing the importance of diversity in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases. Indeed, former Bush Justice Department lawyer 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. Thomas himself, in responding to the question during his confirmation hearing of why he "want[ed] this job," said in part: "I believe ... that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does." Numerous conservative media figures have accused Sotomayor of racism or bigotry since her nomination to the Supreme Court: During the May 26 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said of Sotomayor: "So here you have a racist. You might -- you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one." During the May 26 broadcast of his radio show, Levin claimed of "so-called moderate" Democratic senators voting on Sotomayor: "These people need to understand that if they vote to confirm a radical leftist -- and I will now say what I actually believe -- who is a bigot -- that's right, I said it -- then they need to pay a political price for this." Levin later said he wanted to "defend my position that I believe this nominee is bigoted": LEVIN: Let me defend my position that I believe this nominee is bigoted. New York Times of all places, May 15th -- we will link to all this on marklevinshow.com. In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge, quote, "may and will make a difference in our judging." She said, quote, "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." Now I'm sure they'll spin it. I'm sure they'll attack those of us who see something like this as a red flag, but there is no way -- there is no way you can justify a statement like that other than a bigoted statement. That's not based on somebody's content or character, as Martin Luther King would say. That's based on a generalized statement about race and ethnicity. That statement alone -- that statement alone should disqualify her. Period. While Levin said he "actually believe[d]" that Sotomayor is a "bigot," Levin later claimed he didn't believe she is "a bigot per se, but her comment was certainly bigoted": CALLER: Yeah. I mean, well, other than the fact that she's a bigot. I mean, but, you know, she's a horrible choice. LEVIN: All right -- CALLER: Anyway, Mark, just wanted your thought on that -- on that legal perspective. But God bless, man. And -- LEVIN: All right, you too. Thank you. Now I don't know that I would say she's a bigot per se, but her comment was certainly bigoted -- the one that I've read. And if that is her view, and if that is something she has told other people, then there is a serious question. There's just no question about that. On the May 26 edition of his Fox News program, Beck said Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments "smacks of racism" and is "one of the most outrageous racist remarks I've heard." Beck later claimed: BECK: I don't like the charges of, "Oh, you're a racist. They're a racist." Very few people are racist. There are racists and they're bad people. And -- but it's -- most Americans are good, just decent people, and I hate the charges and cries of racism. But when I hear this -- I mean, gee. She sure sounds like a racist here. On the May 27 broadcast of his radio program, Beck similarly claimed of Sotomayor: "I think she's a racist. I think she has decided things based on race." From Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program: BECK: Well, we've got a -- we've got a Supreme Court justice nominee that is going to be all compassionate and empathetic. I think she's a racist. I think she has decided things based on race. I think she says that a Hispanic woman with the experience of being a Hispanic woman can make decisions that a white man can't make. I can't imagine -- I can't imagine saying that. That's like saying, "You know what? Hispanics can't make money decisions like them Jews." Can you imagine that? I mean, they just can't -- "Look, I don't mean any offense by that. It's just that Hispanics, they're generally on the lower end of the economic spectrum, and Jews, they have so much experience with money and running financial things. They can -- Jews can just make financial decisions that Hispanics can't." Who would say that? Who would say that? In what setting besides a Klan rally -- that strangely had respect for Jews in this one case -- in what setting would that be said that everybody wouldn't go, "Wow, you're a racist"? I guess, it's just, again, you need to be the right person in the right class with the right point of view. That is not a healthy sign. It's not a healthy sign that we're talking about putting that person to now decide what the law says. On the May 26 broadcast of his radio show, CNN host Lou Dobbs called Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments "racist." Dobbs also added of Sotomayor's nomination: "This is pure, pure absolute pandering to the Hispanics, and, you know, filling in the box on one more minority -- that who is actually, you know, they are actually a majority -- and that is women." During the May 26 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Kelly described Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remarks as "reverse racism" and said it was "[l]ike she's saying that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges." Kelly later added, "I've looked at the entire speech that she was offering to see if that was taken out of context, and I have to tell you ... it wasn't." During the May 26 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson claimed that Sotomayor had said that "because of your race or gender, you're a better or worse judge; that female, Latina judges are likely to render wiser decisions than white male judges." Carlson continued, "That's a racist statement, by any calculation." During the May 27 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America, columnist Ann Coulter claimed of Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments: "It is a racist statement, and I think it does a disservice to women and minorities that we're supposed to be empathizing for by suggesting they do have a different way of deciding cases." A May 27 Washington Examiner editorial, headlined, "The racist jurisprudence of Sonia Sotomayor," accused Sotomayor of "blatant racism":  But it is her 2001 comment to a Berkley [sic] Law School audience that is most revealing of Sotomayor's ethnocentric jurisprudence: "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." It is not hard to imagine the outcry that would greet a white male nominee who suggested that his ethnicity and experience would enable him to reach better conclusions than a minority who had lived a different sort of life. He would be dismissed as a racist, and rightly so. Is President Obama now asking that we look the other way when blatant racism comes from an Hispanic woman of otherwise solid achievement? In a May 27 Denver Post column, Vincent Carroll claimed Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments were an "expression of bigotry": If racial and gender bigotry truly have no place in American public life today, then Judge Sonia Sotomayor, during her confirmation hearing for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, needs to utterly repudiate her 2001 assertion that "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." Putting that statement "in context" or explaining what she "really meant" will not do. Nor can Judge Sotomayor credibly argue that her assertion was an ill-considered mistake, since it was part of a prepared speech at the Berkeley school of law. No, she needs to reject it as the expression of bigotry that it was. Even then she'd be getting off easy. After all, as Stuart Taylor wrote last weekend in the National Journal, "Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority." Sotomayor, by contrast, is on the verge of a lifetime post on the most powerful court in the land. While Sotomayor's comparison of the relative wisdom of Latina women and white men has garnered most of the attention in her Berkeley speech, it was hardly her only eyebrow-raising remark that day. After wondering "whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society," she then added, "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." Is she really suggesting that men and women, as well as people of different races, "have basic differences in logic and reasoning" in approaching legal issues? Once again, can you imagine a prominent white male saying such a thing without a legion of critics demanding that he do public penance? From the May 26 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show: LIMBAUGH: So here you have a racist. You might -- you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one. From the May 26 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Mark Levin Show: LEVIN: Again, next hour, you won't want to miss it, we're going to get much more heavily into this. We're going to hear some audio, some statements. And I'll put it in context for you, because we have to fight these things. They keep rolling over -- "Ah, well, they're going to get her anyway." Ah, excuse me. There are some so-called moderate Democrats: [Sen. Ben] Nelson of Nebraska, Landfill [Sen. Mary Landrieu] of Louisiana, [Sen. Evan] Bayh of Indiana. These people need to understand that if they vote to confirm a radical leftist -- and I will now say what I actually believe -- who is a bigot -- that's right, I said it -- then they need to pay a political price for this. These are lifetime appointments. This isn't the deputy associate director of jelly beans. This is a Supreme Court justice. [...] LEVIN: Let me defend my position that I believe this nominee is bigoted. New York Times of all places, May 15th -- we will link to all this on marklevinshow.com. In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge, quote, "may and will make a difference in our judging." She said, quote, "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." Now I'm sure they'll spin it. I'm sure they'll attack those of us who see something like this as a red flag, but there is no way -- there is no way you can justify a statement like that other than a bigoted statement. That's not based on somebody's content or character, as Martin Luther King would say. That's based on a generalized statement about race and ethnicity. That statement alone -- that statement alone should disqualify her. Period. [...] CALLER: Well, you know what, Mark? I think that that one comment that she made where policy is made -- LEVIN: Oh, yeah. CALLER: -- on the federal -- at the Court of Appeals, I think that comment alone should disqualify her, because right there -- LEVIN: I do, too. CALLER: I'm sorry? LEVIN: That's one of them. There's others as well. CALLER: Yeah. I mean, well, other than the fact that she's a bigot. I mean, but, you know, she's a horrible choice. LEVIN: All right -- CALLER: Anyway, Mark, just wanted your thought on that -- on that legal perspective there. But God bless, man. And -- LEVIN: All right, you too. Thank you. Now I don't know that I would say she's a bigot per se, but her comment was certainly bigoted -- the one that I've read. And if that is her view, and if that is something she has told other people, then there is a serious question. There's just no question about that. From the May 26 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck: BECK: OK. And I want to get into this because I think she's made one of the most outrageous racist remarks I've heard. We'll get into that here in just a second when we come back. [...] BECK: Here's what our Supreme Court justice nominee said in a lecture at UC Berkeley School of Law in 2001. She said: "I would hope that a wise Latino woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Gosh, that smacks of racism, but maybe it's just me, Ed. M. EDWARD WHELAN III (Ethics and Public Policy Center president): Well, any white male who made the equivalent of that statement would readily be indicted for racism. Look, what she's talking about is that it's perfectly acceptable for her to draw on her own values in deciding what the law means. That's a recipe for lawlessness. And we see that, actually, when we look at the way she decided an important case that's now pending before the Supreme Court involving firefighters in New Haven who are denied promotions on the basis of their race. These are white and Hispanic firefighters who passed a promotional exam that the city had established. The city then decided it didn't like the racial profile of those who had passed and then threw out the exam. And Sonia Sotomayor, in this case, had no empathy for these firefighters who had worked hard and studied to take this exam. And she and her colleagues worked to bury their claims before anyone could have any idea what had actually happened to them -- really remarkable shenanigans that a Clinton appointee and a fellow Hispanic, Judge Jose Cabranes, exposed. And thanks to him, the case is now in front of the Supreme Court. And -- BECK: So -- look, you know, both of you guys, I don't like the charges of, "Oh, you're a racist. They're a racist." Very few people are racist. There are racists and they're bad people. And -- but it's -- most Americans are good, just decent people, and I hate the charges and cries of racism. But when I hear this -- I mean, gee. She sure sounds like a racist here. Do you think she's a racist, Randy? RANDY BARNETT (Georgetown University Law Center professor): Well, I'm a full-time law professor and I can tell you that statements like that are relatively commonplace in academia, in legal academia and other forms of academia. So I'm sure that she felt rather comfortable in making a statement like that. And I think people just get used to saying things like that without necessarily thinking them through. Contact: Lou Dobbs E-mail: lou.dobbs@turner.com Contact: ABC Radio Networks customerservice@abc.com ABC Radio Networks Contact: Glenn Beck Glenn Beck Contact: Rush Limbaugh ElRushbo@eibnet.com Contact: Glenn Beck Program Glenn Beck Program Contact: Fox News Channel FOX News Channel 1-888-369-4762 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036

You can help support our work; become a volunteer media monitor, or donate to Media Matters for America.