-
Why Doesn’t Obama Ban Iranian Press TV? by Kenneth R. Timmerman
The Case of CH2M HILL: $2 Billion in Crony Stimulation by Rusty Weiss
The Truth about George Soros by AIM Staff
Lifting the Veil on WikiLeaks by AIM Staff
The Truth about Al-Jazeera English by Cliff Kincaid
Reaganomics and Obamanomics in the Media and in Reality by Malcolm A. Kline, Don Irvine and Spencer Irvine
How State Budget Battles Could Mean More Criminals Back on the Streets by Michael Tremoglie
Radical Muslims, Environmentalists and the Green Jihad by Mark Musser
Russian-Backed Propaganda Networks Claim Obama is a CIA Agent by Cliff Kincaid
Media Conceal True Nature of Flash Mob Racial Violence by John T. Bennett
NBC’s Mitchell Should Resign Over Telling Gaddafi’s Lies (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) by Cliff Kincaid
CASA de Maryland: The Illegals’ ACORN by James Simpson
Special Report
The Newswire
Take AIM Podcast
Thw White House which seems to have an answer for everything seems particularly vexed by 32 words from a Sonia Sotomayor speech.
From the Washington Post
In her years on the bench, Sonia Sotomayor has produced millions of words. Opponents of her Supreme Court nomination are particularly interested in 32 of them:
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 said in a 2001 speech.
Fox News anchors and guests began to rail about the sentiment an hour before President Obama announced the nomination on Tuesday: “Reverse racism. . . . Revolutionary, radical. . . . Completely counter to the notion that justice should be blind.”
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich joined the chorus. “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw,” he wrote on his blog. “Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
Yesterday afternoon, the matter spilled into the White House briefing room. “Are you familiar with Newt Gingrich’s blog?” asked CBS News’s Chip Reid.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs smiled at the very notion. “I am not, no,” he said.
Reid told Gibbs of Gingrich’s proposal for Sotomayor to withdraw, and the presidential spokesman responded with a warning for Gingrich and “anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.”
Gibbs proceeded to work his way through the various White House talking points on the nominee: “Federal judicial experience that exceeds any nominee for 100 years. Strict adherence to precedent. . . . Common sense and open-minded decisions. . . . Keen intellect.” As for Sotomayor’s critics, the spokesman taunted, “I’m not sure what number they graduated in their class at Princeton, but my sense is it’s not second.”
Missing from Gibbs’s answer was any attempt to explain or defend the 32 words. But that’s what Supreme Court confirmation proceedings are all about. Both sides recite the usual buzzwords — No litmus test! Judicial restraint! No legislating from the bench! — while pretending they are concerned not in the least about concrete issues.
“Robert, does the president know for a fact that Judge Sotomayor supports the ruling in Roe v. Wade?” CBS Radio’s Mark Knoller asked at yesterday’s briefing.
“Mark, the president doesn’t have a litmus test,” Gibbs replied, as the kabuki instructions require.
Both sides take for granted that Sotomayor supports abortion rights, but nobody is allowed to say it. Instead, the White House arranged for a quintet of legal scholars to hold a teleconference with reporters yesterday that tilted heavily toward platitudes. “She reads statutes extremely closely,” said one. “This is a lawyer’s lawyer,” said another. “Cares a lot about judicial craft,” said a third.
The strategy seems to be to stick to the talking points, not answer questions directly relating to Sotomayor’s position on abortion, get her confirmed and then let her speak. That folks, is transparency, hope and change Obama style.
Share This
About the author
Don Irvine is Chairman of Accuracy in Media. He is active on Facebook and Twitter. You can follow him @donirvine to read his latest thoughts.
5 Comments for 32 Words Vex White House
Statement from the article:
“…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…”
If, by that, she means a female Hispanic judge would be ‘fairer’ to Hispanics than would a white male who hasn’t lived the Hispanic life – - fine – - then let’s give EVERYONE who has to come before a jury or a judge the SAME BENEFIT – - MATCH EVERY JUDGE and jury member to the ethnocentric/demographic characteristics of the defendant!!! A true “judge and jury of one’s EXACT peers”!
I don’t like the statement – - and while I think she’s probably qualified in terms of intellect and experience – - I feel pretty comfortable that the statement alone should disqualify her – - and not only from the SC, but from ANY court!
And, I don’t like Obama thinking that his whole purpose is to further every single “minority” thing that happens to come his way!
Although Obama is certainly in many respects an affirmative action President, Obama’s ancestors were not slaves, no did they ever sit on the back of the bus. Therefore, he needs “empathy,” some help from those Blacks and other minorities who really did suffer historical discrimination and disenfranchisement to feel really “entitled.”
Cap(istalism) and Soc(ialism) Socratic Discourse:
Cap: Transparency, indeed. A simple question and an obverse answer, what say you Soc?
Soc: A standard reply, Aesopian, obscure references, diversion of point, why this is the method. Did you not read Lenin’s Method of Press briefings? or Stalin’s Press release in 1934 re the Purges? Cap, I know you are in this for the money, but get real, the tide has turned.
Cap: Old Soc, I weep tears when I hear you refer to your mentors. The Tide indeed has turned, but if you recall, it ALWAYS comes in with a rush. Stand by for 2010….
end
Re: Post 3;
My use of the word “minority” wasn’t specifically connected to African-Americans or affirmative-action but, rather, to a much wider range of “minority special interests”, e.g., gays, lesbians, the San Francisco Values crowd, illegal immigrants, urban poor, eco-extremists, ACLU types, JDL types – and a lot of other ethno-centric and activist groups and the various oddball and misfit tails that are always trying to wag the dog!
Well I guess they’ll have to remoove the statue of blind justice. Maybe replace it with a scale with empathy weights for one side.