they have not voted against her because of her race. They voted Clarence Thomas in, and he is black...they voted against her ideology...simple as that.
Sorry, Flashy... but that just doesn't cut it for me.
You stated that they voted against Sotomayor for her ideology. Let's look at a dictionary definition of ideology:
a system of ideas or ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or potential theory & policy. Another definition could be the
ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class or individual.
Now, whether or not these ideologies are drawn on Sotomayor's opinions on the economy or Health Care is one thing. What is very apparent is that Jeff Sessions and many other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee had a problem with the "wise Latino" comment and that was repeatedly referenced over and over again. I could understand it being mentioned, however, once Sotomayor explained herself that should have been the end of it.
a republican has just as much right to vote against a Sotomayor ideology with regards to racial preference hiring and being pro-choice as the democrats had the right to vote against Alito for being Pro-Life.
Nobody is suggesting that voting against someone because of their beliefs is wrong, and I'm sure that may of had some part of it. The problem I have with this particular vote is that you know the beliefs regarding these particular Republicans were driven by racism. We should of heard more about her voting record and about some of her decisions, nevermind her views on some of the important political issues. But it seemed as if every time her name was mentioned, someone from the Republican side wanted to make this whole hearing about whether or not she would be too biased or judgmental against white people.
Perhaps if Democrats were voting against Alito because they claimed he would be "too biased" then I would agree with you on the hypocrisy claim. But the issue surrounding him was more about civil rights and abortion (plus the war). Can't say that I heard many Republicans going against Sotomayor for her beliefs regarding Health Care & the Economy.
Do you think for a second had George W, Bush nominated a latina woman, who was pro-life, pro-gun, and had a very high rating from conservative groups, that they would not have confirmed her?
That's irrelevant. That's because we can look at the nomination of John Roberts in 2005 and see that half of the Democrats in the Senate voted for him.
Roberts Confirmed as 17th Chief Justice
And if we look at the issues he's obviously pro-life, pro-gun and had a high rating among conservatives since all of them voted in favor of him.
John Roberts on the Issues
Are you suggesting that Democrats wouldn't have voted for John Roberts if he was a Latino woman? Please tell me that you're not going there...
with regards to Alito, race based accusations did occur if you recall, with regards to his association with the group "Concerned Alumni of Princeton"
It was quite a big stink, and many democrats on the committee, used Alito's association with it to kick up one hell of a fuss, even though the only reason Alito had joined was because he was a member of the ROTC.
The Concerned Alumni of Princeton were already brought up on issues regarding the unfair treatment of minorities and women. They were also known to be firmly against Affirmative Action and co-education. Questions were formed because Alito was also against Affirmative Action and controversy sparked over whether or not his influence may have had any impact. But an extensive search of CAP documentation demanded by Ted Kennedy on January 11, 2006 showed there was no connection between Alito and the organization's actions. And that was the end of it.
This is all about politics and ideology, and the Sotomayor nomination is politics, just as Bork was....neither side has any right to claim some form of altruistic high ground over the other in these despicable displays of partisanship.
If it's just about politics and ONLY that along, then yes I agree with you to some level, although it's rather obvious why John Roberts, a moderate, would favor better than Samuel Alito, a conservative, with a Democrat.
But if it's about ideology, I disagree. You can clearly see the motives of both parties in each case and see where decisions and lines were drawn. You can see how in the case of Alito that we found out that there was no connection between he and the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and it was not even brought up again. However, we can see how many times Jeff Sessions and the rest of the Republicans on the judiciary committee brought up the "wise Latina" comment even after she explained herself.
I'm not going to pretend to be color blind just to find everyone guilty of something. I do it so I can hold every individual responsible for their own actions. I'll never say that all Republicans are racists, the same way that I wouldn't say that all Democrats are trustworthy. But these particular conservatives on the Senate Judiciary Committe have their obvious issues with Sotomayor and her race, and we shouldn't ignore that just so we can paint a bunch of people we may not trust with a broad, generalizing brush. That doesn't make us any better than the ones doing the initial hating.
personally, i see nothing wrong with Sotoomayor, but then again, i really do not care about politicians and who they nominate anymore. I trust none of them. :smile:
Well, I don't trust many politicians either. But I do like to have a good reason for it. :biggrin1: