Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » The Groaning: Seating Judge Sonia Sotomayor On The Supreme Court Bench

The Groaning: Seating Judge Sonia Sotomayor On The Supreme Court Bench

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Why do we never get an answer?
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war
— The Moody Blues, "Question"

America is in pain; she is growing once again, trying to stretch the face of her legal mind to fit the people she serves and as always, there are those who would hold her back. I am referring to a portion of our population who are afraid of change. Whether you are a journalist or a blogger, use Twitter or are a politician, whether you are a conservative, a Republican, a Democrat or a flaming liberal like me, you want someone to hear your voice!

A mother lode of domestic and foreign problems has been dumped on President Obama since the election in November of 2008 and in trying to keep his promise to move us in a new fresh direction he has chosen Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be his first nominee for the Supreme Court. What a victory this will be for the American Latin community. I await her seating with hope and joy. This country has mixed views, to say the least, and I am afraid that racial hatred is rearing its ugly, hideous head.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was on twitter Monday calling Judge Sotomayor a racist because of a much publicized statement she had made in regards to how a Latina woman from an impoverished background might be able to interpret the law differently than her predominately English white male counterparts. I must ask, “What’s wrong with that?” Even my husband was not offended by Judge Sotomayor’s statement. The reasoning behind it is clear enough; she would bring a fresh eye to the court and as a Latina woman she would poses a certain empathy towards people that may be absent in others from a more privileged background. Here is Newt’s tweet: “Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism.”

I found his generalization and taking of Judge Sotomayor words out of context not surprising, as I believe conservatives and the Republican Party to be desperate to regain their fleeting and tenuous hold on America’s psyche and that certain individuals in their ranks will say and do anything to accomplish this. Here is what Judge Sonia Sotomayor actually said in her 2002 speech at UC Berkeley: “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.”

I would like you to consider the video Race to the Bottom, which was compiled by Media Matters for America. I actually find the material and language used here to be so offensive that I do not want to type the words on my keyboard! Please judge for yourselves and decide what you think of these observations.

We are so sharply divided in this country right now and it is evident in almost every aspect of our lives. Nowhere more than when you read the online newspapers. Thanks to the wonders of the cyber-world we can now give instant feedback to whatever we read, think, or feel. Right this minute there are 2,140, and counting, comments under a story in the Huffington Post, with a headline reading "It’s Only Outrageous When She Says It!” The hot button topic of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is practically spilling out of the digital papers as blog after blog and report after report proclaim they have the freshest angle on her or the most information and statistics on her even the style section of the Huffington Post has a question and a little opinion poll to go with it titled “What kind of style will Judge Sotomayor bring to her court robes?"

From The New York Times to this article you’re reading right now we all want a piece of the story of the day. I am motivated to write about Judge Sonia Sotomayor after reading the most vile and hateful words describing the President's pick. I want to counterbalance this whirlwind of words and pictures, facts and statistics with a message to tone down the rhetoric and politicization of this very able woman.

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC explains the attacks and criticisms against Judge Sotomayor by using "props." She compares the makeup of the Supreme bench to a whiskey sour; the four Republicans are the sugar, the two Democrats are the lemon, and the two independent thinkers are the whiskey. This is going to be just one more fight in an already too long line of them amongst our political factions in the United States today and it is really sad that we don't talk to each other anymore.

Powered by

About Jeannie Danna

  • Doug Hunter

    “because of a much publicized statement she had made in regards to how a Latina woman from an impoverished background might be able to interpret the law DIFFERENTLY than her predominately English white male counterparts”

    She didn’t say ‘differently’, she said ‘better’. The fact that you feel the need to misrepresent her statement, consciously or otherwise, is very telling.

    Also Newt had a great point in that if a white male had said that he was better than a Latino he would be disqualified (and likely not even nominated in the first place). Do you disagree? As a self described flaming liberal I suspect you’d be the first in line to bash a white male who made a racist comment especially if you didn’t agree with his politics.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Does anyone have the context of the “wise Latina woman” quote? What was she addressing specifically? It’s very difficult to discuss the quotation out of context, although it does make for a nice soundbyte for those with political agendas.

    I’ve been looking for a broader sense of her remarks but I haven’t been able to find anything.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Spoke too soon, I found it.

    So basically she’s giving a lecture about her experiences specifically as a Latina. The title of the speech is “A Latina Judge’s Voice.”

    In the speech, she says this:

    “We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud.”

    She then goes on to discuss the lack of minority judges and how different experiences provide different judgments, etc.

    The quote in question comes here:

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

    And she also says this:

    “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”

    Now is it “racist” to suggest that some personal background and experiences may produce better results dealing with certain cases than someone elses’ background? I’m not entirely sure that I agree that she was being racist, but I can understand how politically-motivated Republicans could flip it in such a way. She probably should have been more careful with her choice of words, as I think from the context of the speech it’s pretty clear what she meant.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Well sure, Jordan, if you are going to put the sentence in context and make an effort to understand what she was saying, that’s certainly one interpretation.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Doug, [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.”] Jordan found the quote and I stand corrected. I copied it from MSNBC so you will have to call them now. :)
    Jordan, I have written my opinion here through my liberal eyes and I am not claiming to be some sort of political expert on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. That’s the point of the whole essay.
    I hope that you can all debate without resorting to calling me or Judge Sotomayor names…I was really angry Wednesday at certain individuals and I had no right going off on the entire GOP but I will not be called vile names or put up with verbal abuse by anyone.
    The point, and let me reiterate, is that I just like Judge Sotomayor see the world from my perspective, we all do, and this deference can enrich our lives if we would just learn to appreciate each other’s culture.
    I really like the way Dave Nalle edited my article and He made two subtle changes that improved it….thanks Dave :)

  • Doug Hunter

    Jordan and Jeanie,

    I’m not making the case that the judge is some virulent racist or that I’m even offended by the comment. The first thing I did was look up the full text of the speech and am well aware of the context. I’m simply suggesting we have a double standard on these things and if the roles were reversed your team (the liberals) would be up in arms shouting racism from the rooftops and I’d be the one searching for ‘context’.

    The difference is the controversy will pass for Judge Sotomayer and she will continue. Contrast that with someone like Senator Lott. At another senator’s birthday party he says basically you would have made a good president (when you ran in the 40’s or 50’s) People look back and realize that at the time the senator supported segregation and was a racist and that is pinned on Lott.

    Now in context that was simply a case of saying something nice at a birthday party but your side jumped all over it and he was forced to resign.

    When it’s a white male context doesn’t matter, a double standard does exist. That was my point, not that the judge is dangerous.

  • SD

    I can not help but thinking that a quote from a statement 8 years ago and taken out of context is should not be the sole basis to judge a person. Everyone is a composite of their life experiences, education, culture, and other influences that make each person unique. I fail to see her comment as racist..just a statement about her perspective. Should not differing views on a subject make us stronger in the long run as we can see all sides of an issue? Is that not what America is all about? Good article Jeannie.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I agree, SD. What she ought to do, though, is to address the issue and explain the context and the quote. I wouldn’t definitely want to be running on such a “platform” as a nominee for SCOTUS.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Thank you SD! I know this is going to be a ruff ride and it was good to see your comment…:)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “double standard does exist”

    Correct, Doug – but I wouldn’t worry about other contexts because people will be people. But you can’t be running on the double standard as a nominee. She’ll have to repudiate.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Anyways, we do have a mechanism in SCOTUS for a dissenting opinion. So why rub it in the face of “old white men” and play one-upmanship?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Doug, I believe the time has come for America to embrace all her cultures, not just the privileged; please do not be offended by this statement. I see a lot of disenfranchised people in our country today. If we can reflect all our ethnicities by appointing representative Judges to the Supreme Court I say why not? It is high time we enriched our American culture with the tapestry we have in front of us, the family of man, and this may sound like a slogan but we are the United States not the Divided States.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    ” If we can reflect all our ethnicities by appointing representative Judges to the Supreme Court I say why not?”

    That’s the best argument for supporting her – everything else (i.e., the matter of qualifications, characters, etc.) being equal.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    So you’ve finally decided to brave it in, Jeannie, by publishing in the nasty Politics section.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Roger, Are you referring to the day I joked around saying I was tired of old white men running this country? I guess I was being playful and not sensitive to others..sorry :(

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Not really, Jeannie – just used the term in the context of Sonia’s remarks.

    I’m trying to get a blow-out of your picture, but I can’t.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Roger, You are not nasty! you are fun! BTW I got a grammar checker in a new word program, unfortunately it won’t work here. You’ll have to suffer with the rest of em!

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    That’s my glowing profile..like it? I look like the whitest woman in the world! :)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I use Microsoft Office Word, Student version. Find it fully-functional.

    So you must be a northern Italian, not a Siciliano.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    I’m Italian where it counts in my heart! My actual blood line is a mystery Roger,I was adopted and I find this fact surprisingly freeing in my old age…:)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Wow! They must have loved you. The Italians are great people, like the Greeks. I was being courted once by an Italian family in NYC. They all want to check you out first whether you’re right for their daughter. I was too young, though.

    I bet you, though, that had I married I would have stayed married. Once in the family, always in the family.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    It’s almost time to start a new article here before grass grows under my feet! I feel a blog coming on..:)

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Yes Roger they sure loved me…although I drove them nuts! I guess I have that ability

  • Jimmy McJimmy

    Yeah, men don’t know what it’s like to have labor pains either. Typical female chauvinisms. But what about white female Judges who used to hire Hispanics as maids? Will the Supreme Court soon be the venue of hiss and scratch cat fights? And will Clarence Thomas try to facilitate same?

    We have never had two women on the court at the same time, have we?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Does my hair look blonde Roger? I have always wanted to be blonde..:)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, H&C just used it as shorthand: “a dumb blonde,” if you know what it mean.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Roger, What are you working on now?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    A little piece, Jeannie, but my head is a mush. No cigarettes, no whiskey, no coffee.
    Can’t work under those conditions.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Roger, I quit smoking 4 years ago and it was the best thing I ever did..air

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Well sure, Jordan, if you are going to put the sentence in context and make an effort to understand what she was saying, that’s certainly one interpretation.

    ROFL @ El B.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m certain. I quit once for seven years.
    But right now my brain cells are wired.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Roger, as long as we keep our heads while this thing is here we will be ok..:)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    [Edited] Not to rain on a parade with actual information, but Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sat on the Supreme Court 1981 – 2006. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed in 1993 and is still there. They overlapped by about thirteen years. I seem to recall that both are women.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Hi Cindy! good to see you here..:)

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Thanks Dan! I am working on a culture piece next, but still I have the right to express myself.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #33,

    I think this transcends the education problem, Jeannie. It’s generational. The sins of the fathers visit on their children for seven generations. And you’re seeing the fruit.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    Just two things.

    Anyways, we do have a mechanism in SCOTUS for a dissenting opinion. So why rub it in the face of “old white men” and play one-upmanship?

    You would have to read her speech which was actually presented in 2001. It was an annual memorial to a Latino judge which is a ‘themed’ conference on such issues and it was published thusly, in a journal under a similar theme:

    “…in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, a symposium issue entitled “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation…”

    So, she is not playing one-upmanship. But was speaking to the community as a voice for a cultural perspective.

    But you can’t be running on the double standard as a nominee. She’ll have to repudiate. and,

    Second, she is not ‘running on a double standard’. You might have to read her speech to understand that, the point is in context and elaborated on.

    And were she to repudiate, she will have been conquered by the dominant, privileged cultural imperatives. I don’t think it’s going to happen. And I sure hope not.

    She is the voice of the future, not the voice of the past, which was more interested in ‘playing’ politics–and bent even those with good intentions to give up their noblest ideas. She is a new sort of voice that brings honesty and talks back to that old style and rejects it. It is a strength that refuses to give up or sell out in order to accomplish its goals.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    No disagreement, Cindy. I was trying to find the common ground with the opposition. I understand the motivational context of the original remarks, and the “double standard” should be in quotation marks.

    Repudiation was not the most fortunate term. Still, she’s going to have to come across as more “judicious” and more “objective” – i.e., allowing for the dissenting voices rather than claiming superior and/or privileged vision as her unique (and no one else’s) attribute – before her nomination is approved. Mark my words.

    So my point in essence touched on pragmatics.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Jeannie,

    Great article. A couple things:

    The point, and let me reiterate, is that I just like Judge Sotomayor see the world from my perspective, we all do, and this deference can enrich our lives if we would just learn to appreciate each other’s culture.

    I think that is a very important point to make. I just wanted to retweet you on that. :-)

    I really like the way Dave Nalle edited my article and He made two subtle changes that improved it….thanks Dave :)

    I think Dave does a fine job as an editor too and is very easy to work with and supportive. I’m really happy you published in politics.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Cindy and Roger, Thank you for your support here. You know, my education was not classic and I see things from my heart. “bleeding heart liberal” ha ha :)

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    OMG, Look at the time! I have to go. I hope my article is still here when I get back..BYE

  • Clavos

    She is a new sort of voice that brings honesty and talks back to that old style and rejects it. It is a strength that refuses to give up or sell out in order to accomplish its goals.

    Sorta like Obama…

    /sarcasm

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    LOL Clav. (I await the day—10,000 years hence—when we get rid of judges altogether. Honest voices or not.)

    Roger yes, accomplices, I had an answer for you on that post.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Okay here goes my dumb blond joke (bombs away):

    Three construction workers were working on top of a building, they were a Mexican fellow, an Irishman, and a blond guy.

    They sat down for lunch and Jose pulled out a burrito. He said, “Every day my wife makes me the same thing. I am so sick of burritos. If I get one more burrito I am going to jump off this building.”

    Donald opened his lunch and pulled out an Irish Stew. “Same here. Every day it’s the same thing. If I get stew just one more time, I’m jumping too.”

    The blond guy opened his lunch and pulled out a baloney sandwich. “Me too. Every day it’s baloney. One more baloney sandwich and I’m gonna jump.”

    The next day, the three men sat down for lunch and, as expected, Jose pulled out a burrito and jumped off the building. Donald saw his stew and jumped right after him. The blond guy predictably got a baloney sandwich and followed suit.

    A single funeral was held for all three. Mrs. Gonzalez cried, if I only knew Jose didn’t like burritos I could have made him a taco! Mrs. Murphy cried, If only I knew Donald hated stew, I could have made him something else.

    They both looked over at the blond guy’s wife, wondering how she could be so cold as she didn’t seem remorseful at all. Don’t look at me, she said. My husband made his own lunch.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy, #52:

    I answered you on the other, Gay-ban thread.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Cindy, you say (Comment #44),

    She is the voice of the future, not the voice of the past, which was more interested in ‘playing’ politics–and bent even those with good intentions to give up their noblest ideas. She is a new sort of voice that brings honesty and talks back to that old style and rejects it. It is a strength that refuses to give up or sell out in order to accomplish its goals.

    I am not convinced that Judge Soomayor’s is more a voice of the future than of the past; more likely, it seems to be a voice of a past-present-future continuum. The Seventh Circuit in Wilson v. Weaver, 499 F.2d 155 (7th Cir. 1974) held that despite a lack of legislative history as to what the Congress had intended, an unborn child is a “dependent child” within the meaning of the Social Security laws then in effect. Circuit Court Judge Pell, dissenting and concurring in part, recalled that

    The legal status of the unborn child, recently the object of attention in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), is not a new problem to the judiciary. At least as early as 1695, although the Common Bench and the King’s Bench had unanimously held that a posthumously born child created a gap in the seisin, a thing abhorrent to the common law, the House of Lords with Baron Turton of the Court of Exchequer present held that the child could take a remainder interest in property. Reeve v. Long, 3 Lev. 408 (1695).

    In a footnote, Judge Pell recited an old poem:

    ‘Let’s fill the cups to Baron Turton
    Who, though the law was clear and certain
    Would rather help a little foetus
    Than round out Charlie Fearne’s dull treatise.’

    As pointed out in my two recent articles on Judge Sotomayor, the decisions which have thus far been much discussed, in which she joined as a judge on the Second Circuit, seem to rely heavily on precedent, as I think they should. I am hopeful that when acting in her capacity as a Supreme Court justice, she will continue along the same path.

    Perhaps you would like an “anarchist judge?” Doesn’t that seem rather oxymoronic?

    Dan(Miller)

  • Clavos

    Perhaps you would like an “anarchist judge?” Doesn’t that seem rather oxymoronic?

    Yes, it does. Which is probably why Cindy says she’d prefer no judges.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dan(Miller),

    By ‘voice of the future’, I wasn’t addressing the content of what would be said. I only was speaking for the idea that the subordinate cultures will rise with their own multiple viewpoints and not cow to the dominant voice that says this or that way of seeing things is the only acceptable way.

    An example: When I went to college, the only way one should write a scholarly paper was from an objective point of view–personal experience and voice was anathema. Now there is something called autoethnography. It brings in the personal voice and experience. Articles are now being published to major journals in this voice.

    The point being, the ‘voices of the future’ stood up to the status quo. Individual teachers and students and social scientists decided they would write in a style because it had merit and was valid and they did it despite what the status quo said was acceptable to scholarly writing.

    When I was in school. I was too busy trying to imitate scholarly writing to be a voice of the future.

    Perhaps you would like an “anarchist judge?” Doesn’t that seem rather oxymoronic?

    What Clav said.

    LOL. Indeed, it would be even more than oxy moronic–or less perhaps.

    Anarchism is consistent with juries, not with judges.

    [BTW Dan(Miller) do you have any secret spy message for me yet?]

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Speaking of “autoethnography,” in the early seventies there was a new kind of study which started to resurface in the social sciences – ethnomethodology.

    You might want to look this up, especially the work by Harold Garfinkel, “Studies in Ethnomethodology.” He was the pioneer.

    “Anne Rawls states: “Ethnomethodology is the study of the methods people use for producing recognizable social orders” [9].
    The social order used in our example is the recognizably competent performance of the methods and practices of surfing [“being a surfer”] as demonstrated by members of this particular group of surfers.
    The fundamental assumption of ethnomethodological studies is characterized by Anne Rawls:
    “If one assumes, as Garfinkel does, that the meaningful, patterned, and orderly character of everyday life is something that people must work constantly to achieve, then one must also assume that they have some methods for doing so”. That is, “… members of society must have some shared methods that they use to mutually construct the meaningful orderliness of social situations” [10].
    In line with this assumption, the goal of ethnomethodological investigations becomes the description of the methods employed in the production of the orderly character of everyday life. These methods are embedded in the work that people do, and realized in local settings by the people who are party to those settings.”

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Now Judge Pell, in appending a poem in a footnote of a legal writing–maybe he was like a voice of the future. (Unless, of course, that was commonly accepted.)

    Then again, in trying to determine whether Judge Pell was a he or a she, I discovered someone (for some reason or other) thinks Judge Pell is a fraud.

    But, I don’t have the patience or the interest in Judge Pell to find out why.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Cindy, re last paragraph:

    Never fear. In due course, and in the fullness of time, I shall do it(:>). I’ve been spending far too much time on the hot-button issue of our new Supreme Court justice, which I must confess I find more interesting than the question of what is, or may be, or isn’t, or may not be “torture.” I shall steel myself and provide the coded message.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Oh, not that Dan(Miller)…that is old history Get to that at your leisure.

    I only wondered if the, you know, eagle had landed? Ahem…(hint hint). Do I have to quote a verse from Spenser?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Cindy, #62

    It takes about a month for stuff to get to our PO box from the States, and we check it every week or so. I’m looking forward to receiving the materials referenced in your coded message, and shall have my copy of The Code Breakers handy.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Thanks for #59 Roger, very interesting. Autoethnography speaks says something about ethnography as done by anthropologists. I am only just starting to read about ethnomethodology, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it has something to do with the later idea of autoethnography–or even provided the insight for it. Hard to tell though after only a few paragraphs.

    [Edited]

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    They said 6 business days. They promised! It’s the government! They never lie!

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dan(Miller),

    It went priority mail. So, if you don’t have it next time you check your box, let me know and I’ll go fight for a refund.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Cindy,

    It’s the government! They never lie! Why, no of course not.*

    Dan(Miller)

    *I must assume that the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring BC comments. So, evidently, do you.

  • Clavos

    *I must assume that the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring BC comments. So, evidently, do you.

    If they are, the two of you talking about sending each other coded mail has certainly lit up their radar.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Clav — Hot Damn! That will give them something to do, thereby getting more of them hired and stimulating the economy. It must be boring spending their time on renegade veterans, Methodist bishops and Rush Limburger.

    Better be careful though, I hear that they are particularly interested in people with Hispanic connections.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Censorship, of any kind or sort whatever, as well as all limitations on absolute freedom of speech, are always bad, no matter the context, and should never be invoked.

    !
    !
    !
    !
    !
    !
    !
    !
    !

    There are, of course, exceptions where children (of any age) are involved, see Doninger v. Niehoff

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Can’t wait until they get the banned option fixed.

  • Clavos

    C’mon, Bicho, (Miller)’s OK! :>)

  • Arch Conservative

    Regardless of what one thinks of Sotomayor the fact is that King Barry himself voted against Alito and Roberts for purely political reasons and now he expects everyone to fall in line and jump on the Sotomayor bandwagon.

    He and his minions are nothing but hypocritical riff raff.

  • zingzing

    archie: “Regardless of what one thinks of Sotomayor the fact is that King Barry himself voted against Alito and Roberts for purely political reasons and now he expects everyone to fall in line and jump on the Sotomayor bandwagon.”

    and that’s just what the smart ones will do. like it or not, obama played this opportunity with such political shrewdness that to oppose sotomayor’s appointment is stupid. checkmate.

    republicans may gripe, but sotomayor is going in.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dan(Miller),

    Thank you very much for the free speech case. What do you think about these two, items:

    1) FCC Warrantless Household Searches

    You may not know it, but if you have a wireless router, a cordless phone, remote car-door opener, baby monitor or cellphone in your house, the FCC claims the right to enter your home without a warrant at any time of the day or night in order to inspect it.

    Supreme Court upholds warrantless search by FCC.

    2) The case in the supreme court about the strip-searched student.

    P.S. /999((42))***!

  • Arch Conservative

    republicans may gripe, but sotomayor is going in.

    I agree with you Zing, Sotomayer will probably be seated on the Supreme Court but that still doesn’t change the fact that King Barry and the Dems are hypocrites.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Hypocrisy is over-rated!

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    I have something to say to all the people who hung around this thread yesterday in spite of that thing and all of it’s slurs and even the fact that we have different political views….Thank You!
    Now please read this:)
    Thank you

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    My husband and I are going to walk in the woods today :) and we will probably hug a tree…next essay:)

  • Arch Conservative

    “Hypocrisy is over-rated!”

    Yes I agree, people are getting tired of Obama already.

  • Bliffle

    #1 Doug Hunter says:

    “…Newt had a great point in that if a white male had said that he was better than a Latino he would be disqualified (and likely not even nominated in the first place). Do you disagree?”

    I remember well that in the 50s and 60s this exact argument was made on behalf of white candidates vs. black candidates. The argument went like this:

    “while we all want the best for blacks, it is nevertheless imperative that we elect the white candidate because he, as a member of the majority white race is in a better position of strength to deal fairly with race issues, because he doesn’t have the same axe to grind and thus is above mere race politics and the pressures that the black guy will be subjected to by his black supporters”.

    It was openly promoted that whites were better able to be color-blind than blacks. Can you believe it? After 400 years of whites imposing slavery and discrimination on blacks?

    And it was even worse before the 50s.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Bliffle,

    Taking everything in Comment #71 as absolutely and undeniably true, where is the change in which we were urged to believe a few short months ago?

    Isn’t the notion that an Hispanic female can be more just than can a White male in dealing with racial or feminist issues the same song, different verse? Surely, you would not suggest that since Whites owned Black slaves years ago, Blacks should be permitted and encouraged to own White slaves now.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    #72

    Actually that sounds like a capital idea, but only white ‘male’ slaves. I have to put my foot down somewhere.

    Perhaps if that does happen, we will all get to discuss whether or not that could even be called slavery.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Actually, come to think of it, not all of you will get to participate in that discussion–you’ll probably be busy with other things.

    Jeannie? Clav? I think we need to talk amongst ourselves about this.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Re Comment #63

    Arch, you say King Barry himself voted against Alito and Roberts for purely political reasons and now he expects everyone to fall in line and jump on the Sotomayor bandwagon.

    Hypocritical? Of course. However, I very much doubt that President Obama expects any such thing. Such an expectation would fly in the face of the way things have been done for a long time; uninformed knee jerk reactions are certainly to be expected, rather than the reverse, from most politicians — that sort of thing is their stock in trade. To expect any better would be rather silly.

    Here, knee jerk reactions by Republicans are almost certain to hurt the Republicans and to help the Democrats — the more absurd and partisan the reactions the better for the Democrats. On the other hand, Knee jerk reactions by the Democrats supporting the confirmation of their party leader’s nominee seem quite unlikely to harm the Democrats or to help the Republicans.

    It strikes me that by opposing the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor reasonably, and only on the basis of her judicial philosophy as demonstrated by what she actually said and did as a Second Circuit judge over the past decade, as distinguished from egregious spin, the Republicans would do themselves far less damage than President Obama realistically hopes for, and might even do themselves some good. If the Republicans demonstrate what I consider good judgment during the confirmation process, instead of shooting themselves in the foot, they will have a lot to complain about, loudly and legitimately, when a future Republican president nominates a reliable conservative to the Court and the Democrats want to “bork” the nominee. That day may come, perhaps as early as 2013 or 2014 — a possibility that should be kept in mind.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Cindy, re comment #73 — I am shocked, gravely depressed and terminally disillusioned by the notion that an Anarchist could favor White male slavery! Surely, you could not do such a thing!

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Darn, Dan(Miller)! Can’t Anarchists have any fun?!

    P.S.n%@+++=(((42)))

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Jeannie, Clav is half Swedish or some such. What do you think, should he be considered a white male or not?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    #71 is full of sh__. Pardon my frankness here, but in this year 2009 there are people in this country who do not look at Italian Americans as white, Newt being one of them.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Cindy, Clav is Clav…:)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #79,

    If that’s really the case, Jeannie, then it’s about time to rid us of all those old white men. They’re senile, besides, because of old age and inbreeding. Yet imagine, on the Marcus Epstein thread, they’re some who still argue on behalf of white supremacist, racialist theories.

    This country had had it.

  • Clavos

    @#s 78, 80:

    Besides the Swedish, the other half is Irish, and one of my passports states I’m a Mexican.

    ¡Hijole!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Swedish is phlegmatic and Irish hot-tempered. Some combination.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Jeannie? Are you sure you read #71 correctly? The part about Newt was a quote.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Hold onto that passport Clav, just in case.

  • Clavos

    Swedish is phlegmatic and Irish hot-tempered. Some combination.

    So, by extension, I must also be thick-headed (Swede) and a drunk (Irish)?

    You’re Polish. Are you stupid and backward?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Clavos, the reference was to temperament, not to IQ. The extension wasn’t implied. Yes, I was stupid and backward until I joined the BC community. And now I’m born again.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I haven’t noticed that Swedes cough more than non-Swedes, but I guess it’s a possibility if they’re always getting stuffed up.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    They take plenty of lozenges. A prophylactic.

  • Clavos

    Hold onto that passport Clav, just in case.

    Cindy, I understand what you’re saying. Unfortunately for Mexico, it and the US are so inextricably intertwined that if the US collapses, Mexico (and in fact, most of this hemisphere) will be dragged right down with it.

    I’m reminded of Mexican President Porfirio Diaz’s famous line:

    “Poor Mexico! So far from God and so close to the United States!”

  • Clavos

    Clavos, the reference was to temperament, not to IQ.

    Roger,

    The reference was to unfounded (and bigoted) generalizations.

  • Clavos

    Jordan,

    LOL!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Right, but it wasn’t meant in seriousness.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And what’s bigoted, anyway, to refer to temperamental traits. They’re not disparaging. Besides, we all have ‘em.

  • Clavos

    Roger,

    Consider your question in a slightly edited form:

    “And what’s bigoted, anyway, to refer to…traits?”

    From The American Heritage dictionary:

    trait

    NOUN: 1. A distinguishing feature, as of a person’s character. See synonyms at quality. 2. A genetically determined characteristic or condition: a recessive trait. 3a. A stroke with or as if with a pencil. b. A slight degree or amount, as of a quality; a touch or trace: a sermon with a trait of humor.”

    Now do you see it?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Clavos, Once again, the reference wasn’t to character, only temperament. Anyway, I didn’t mean it disparagingly. And even as individuals, we all have them – a way of summarizing” a person. I have nothing against Swedes and I love Irish. Besides, it was mostly in jest. If I overstepped, I’m sorry. I didn’t know you were going to take it personally.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “So, by extension, I must also be thick-headed (Swede)…”

    well.

  • zingzing

    archie: “I agree with you Zing, Sotomayer will probably be seated on the Supreme Court but that still doesn’t change the fact that King Barry and the Dems are hypocrites.”

    i seem to remember you shouting “racist pig” in comment #2 on some other sotomayor-related article… so, don’t talk of hypocrisy. the level of irony just lowered the temperature in the room a few degrees.

  • Clavos

    OK, Rog.

    Was just makin’ a point.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I did’t mean any offense. I hope you know that. It’s over.

    Now help me & Cindy with real issues – Epstein’s thread.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Why are there 100 comments over here if this is such a non-issue and who the hell is King Barry??? and I did not insult Clavos!!! Now I’m publishing in culture where they are civil to one another, GOT THAT?

  • zingzing

    “who the hell is King Barry”

    it’s conservative-speak for obama. because they can’t come up with anything more original. come on, we called him king george for years. it’s played out.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    OH

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    BTW, Jeannie, I have some personal info. to email. OK?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    ?

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    k

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Thanks. Tomorrow.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Roger and Jeannie, I believe this wouldn’t be the first time that I have advised you not to respond to blatantly provocative remarks, particularly when they are coming from someone who is banned and will be re-banned as soon as some geek gets round to writing the requisite code. The only effect is that I have to delete even more comments…

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Sorry Chris I just wanted to stick up for myself

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Just ignore it next time, Jeannie. It’s for the best. Soon, they won’t be able to post at all.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Anyways, I’m done for today. Manana.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    I just looked at my blog and I think I killed it

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Night night Rog

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Still there. Bye.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I missed all the fun. Phlegmatic, coughing swedes and their use of prophylactics. Roger being reborn. Funny stuff in here.

    Clav,

    That passport will come in handy as well, if the white male slave idea catches on. Just tell them to look at your passport. I won’t let on that your half Swedish and half Irish. Just looking out for you Clav.

  • zingzing

    it’s amazing how some people are able to decrease the quality of a site just by showing up. it’s like the ugly girl in a game of spin the bottle.

  • zingzing

    jeannie. ha. yeah. “the ugly girl in a game of spin the bottle?” that was for justoneman. i was saying his presence on the website, which i’m sure he reads (since he was commenting before the editors swooped in), is an eyesore. not you.

    it’s my fault for commenting on the one better left ignored and forgotten, aka jom. i just wanted to play.

    see? no need to get worked up.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Please disregard my comment to you Zing but I do wish you would write a political article so I could read your views too.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    :)