On reflecting upon the recent faux outrage about the faux racism of Judge Sotomayor by a panel of almost identical looking senators (both in dress and physical appearance), these gentlemen are beginning to resemble their Iranian counterparts. While the Mullahs allegedly deny the Holocaust, here we have the scrutiny of a senator from South Carolina, a state that until recently flew the Confederate Flag (which is either racist or unpatriotic) and the indignation of the senator from Alabama, a state that had de facto slavery until the 1940s. Never mind that Sotomayor has in the majority of her judicial decisions ruled against plaintiffs in civil rights cases; that Justice Alito who has admitted that his ethnic background affects his judicial decisions recently ruled in favor of an Italian American in the Ricci case; that to Republican senators judicial impartiality means favoring the status quo only; that the Republican Vice Presidential candidate in the last election ran on the platform that her values and insight as a rural woman made her superior to urban men; or that there has only been two non white justices and only two women on the Supreme Court in its entire history. Sotomayor is the racist and white senators must fear her wrath.
And now because a black Harvard professor, an elitist like Obama himself, may have cried wolf, suddenly rejecting the very existence of racial profiling, like Iranian Holocaust denial, has become the conservative battle axe of the day. Nevertheless, the image of the American Mullahs alone speaks volumes.
7 responses to “The American Mullahs”
another nice post
Here is an article that compares Palin to Ahmadinejad, slightly exaggerated, but the point is well taken. Similarly a few months ago I compared Palin to the Taliban.
How about an article comparing Chairman Maobamination to …. say ….
Hell, any lying sack of shit geitenneuker will do … take your pick, they are littered throughout history … notable, as the losers.
OH, and the Ricci case was properly overturned.
You can’t refuse people professional advancement based on nothing more than race; and the liability of the city, as used for the excuse in the per curiam by Sotomayoron, was completely unsupported by any Constitutional Law.
Alito isn’t usually correct, but in this case, he did get it …
To be honest, I don’t yet have an opinion on Ricci. But all of the arguments in favor of Ricci, at least those presented by the Judiciary Committee Republicans, were based on emotion and a sympathetic plaintiff, not on the law. The arguments against Sotomayor is that she will vote in favor of minorities like herself, regardless of the merits of the case, although the record simply does not prove that. Using that same superficial prism, Alito voted in favor of his ethnic group.
Sotomayor was at least consistent in that she has a history of rejecting a plaintiff’s argument in civil rights cases. What the Democrats probably do not realize is that is just how liberal she is not.
You can read her opinions, or more often, lack of a knowledgeable, law backed opinion, on a number of cases.
What you are saying, as well as her own rhetoric, do not match what her actions have been … and will continue to be; no matter how much it impacts the Constitutional authority toward the negative.
Kennedy is awful.