Why is anyone suprised about Sotomayor?

Some commenters here, and other conservative bloggers, are outraged over the Sonia Sotomayor pick. I think all of my outrage was used up this year. Sotomayor is exactly the kind of Supreme Court Justice I always knew Obama would appoint, so there’s neither surprise nor any outrage (because outrage requires a little bit of shock). In a September, 2008 blog post in which I explained why I was voting against Obama even though he is smarter than McCain, I wrote:

Obama will appoint liberal justices to the Supreme Court. Most people seem to think that the Supreme Court does nothing except decide abortion cases, but the reality is that the Supreme Court has a huge influence over our nation’s laws, and the record shows that justices appointed by liberal presidents attempt to push the laws in all sorts of left-wing directions.

Half Sigma told you so, but I don’t really consider it a big moment to brag about my prescience because this was such an obvious prediction you would have had to be a moron not to see it coming.

Comments

[Linda]

Sigma, earlier you claimed Obama must have an IQ above 140 and probably 150 to have been a good student at Harvard Law. And yet you are silent on the reports that Sonia lacks high intelligence. Sonia was a top student at Yale law, made the Yale law review (blind essay contests) and was also the very best (or second best) student at all of Princeton. So what do you think Sonia's IQ is? Also 150?

[HS: I haven't been motivated to look into the issue. It doesn't matter how intelligent she is if she uses her intelligence to swing the Court in a leftist direction. In any event, she seems intellectually lazy in the way George W. Bush underperformed intellectually relative to his SAT scores and education, although she is probably smarter then W. because law school is more academically demanding than business school, and she seems to have gotten good grades in undergraduate school (where unlike law school, grading is not blind). I don't know whether she wrote onto law review or graded on. That's a huge difference.]

[Linda]

I suspect both Obama & Sonia have IQ's around 140. They were probably both helped by affirmative action, but millions of minorities get affirmative action & don't go anywhere near as far as these two went. I suspect Sonia was viewed as a light weight because of racism, sexism, and weightism, causing elitist whites to underestimate her and her ideas. Obama also had to deal with racism, but not sexism and weightism, so his intellect gets more respect than Sonia's despite probably being no higher.

[HS: There's no evidence of Sotomayor's Yale Law grades. She wrote onto law review, which tends to be a random sort of thing based on my experience.]

[pzed]

"why I was voting for Obama even though he is smarter than McCain"

u mean voting against.

[HS: Oops. Fixed.]

[Reaganite Republican Resistance]

Unless you are delusional, Sotomayer is a racist, as are all members of the treasonous La Raza -by definition- who’s motto is “For our race everything- for others, nothing”.

Clearly Eric Holder has some racial hangups and agenda too… as does Obama, since his behavior betrays a wierd pro-Kenyan grudge against the British… and he’s the one who nominated all these kooks.

What happened to the idea of a colorblind society? Team Obama define their world in racial terms all the time- and unlike any white people I know. I wouldn’t want to be judged by any of them after what I’ve heard come out of their own mouths- they sound like Jesse Jackson.

If Obama is going to go on with his “justice” agenda largely based upon race- the double standards need to stop, and NOW.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

[Jack]

Colorblind society? Really?

Look, doesn't everyone here realize the basic human nature that people want to help out their own group, to the detriment of opposing groups? There is no "colorblind society." There will never be. Barack Obama is a black man, mainly supported by leftist guilty whites and single women. His appointments include many minorities and possibly lesbian white women, as well as very few white men. Obama hates white men and their power. Most of his supporters do too.

In addition, Barack Obama is the first president we have had who has no training in American values. He has lived in Hawaii, Indonesia, Manhattan, Cambridge, and SWPL Chicago. Unlike even Carter and Clinton, he was not raised with Middle American values whatsoever. I think it's a stretch even calling him "American." He is bought and paid for by NARAL, La Raza, NAACP, etc. There is no reason for anyone to believe he will ever oppose feminism or "reverse" racism, as the people who bought his presidency are the most left we have ever seen in this country. He is the most liberal President in history and was the most Liberal Senator in the Senate.

[dearieme]

" the very best (or second best) student at all of Princeton." How could such a thing be known? Across all subjects? Daft idea.

[Peter]

On the other hand, Sotomayor's decision in Jocks vs. Tavernier, a case from my neck of the woods, was about as non-liberal as you can get:

http://www.slate.com/id/2219251/.

[sabril]

"What happened to the idea of a colorblind society?"

Make no mistake: That's just a catchphrase used by people who want to grab as much power and resources as possible for themselves and their group.

When the NAMs finally have control, do you think everyone will just hold hands and sing kum-bah-yah? Of course not.

Whitey will be persecuted, slaughtered, and chased out of the country just like in Rhodesia.

[Peter]

"law school is more academically demanding than business school"

Law school has no math or computers, while business school, while hardly equivalent to engineering, has moderate amounts of both.

"I suspect Sonia was viewed as a light weight because of racism, sexism, and weightism"

Weightism? Look at some of the pictures of Sotomayor from Princeton and law school. She was quite trim at the time.

[HS: I have both an MBA and a JD. Law school was a lot more difficult. The MBA doesn't require any math beyond what anyone should have learned in 8th grade algebra.]

[Richard Hoste hbdbooks.com]

Doesn't the point have to come when white people stand up for themselves as white people? Isn't that the only way we can get out of these more and more absurd and blatant double standards and discrimination?

This thread over at Auster's that I'm participating in

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013300.html

A couple days ago he called the left a collection of anti-white tribes. If American conservatives/whites don't realize this nothing else matters. That's why I'd rather have the black guy with the Muslim name from a black radical church introducing an anti-white Mestizo bigot than John McCain representing what it means to be a conservative.

Considering NAMs will never give up AA or racial collectivism because they benefit from it, is there really any other option besides white identity politics?

[Joe]

I agree

[Zylonet]

--On the other hand, Sotomayor's decision in Jocks vs. Tavernier, a case from my neck of the woods, was about as non-liberal as you can get:

http://www.slate.com/id/2219251/.--

Peter, great link. However, I believe her decision in the case could be argued as liberal, wherein liberal is the rise of the police state and where conservatism is the embodiment of liberty. I do not know the details of the case, however, it's pretty difficult to believe that cops should have such broad powers.

I once read an argument that the 4th amendment has been misapplied for the better part of the last Century. The argument was that the 4th provided cops the ability to search people as desired, but that common law provided a check by enabling the searched party to sue the cop for any search that proved unwarranted. In this regard, there was a check on police power. Now I may have rubbished the argument (I think Atlantic Monthly 1998-1999), but I believe I have generally described it accurately. In any regard, Sotomayor's decision provides for unlimited police power with no counterbalancing check. Thus her decision has paved the way for greater and greater abuses. There is no reason on this earth to believe that cops are more honest than average citizens. Actually, we can guess that the cops are incented to lie; for lying under oath, to ensure a conviction, is a method to gain power. In government agencies, power is a common lever by which to attain job security and promotional opportunity.

[Josh]

This is a weird situation, because Sotomayor is DEFINITELY not what I was expecting: she is, in fact, not very liberal.

Don't get me wrong, she's left of center, but only on certain issues and in general she's going to sway the balance of the court even more to the right. At least that's the feeling I get from what I've seen so far.

[Stopped Clock]

I dont see how the Jocks v Tavernier case breaks down into conservative vs liberal sides. Is it automatically conservative to side with the police just because some liberals are paranoid about cops? I really don't think so.

[miles]

Sigma,

She, if confirmed, will be replacing Souter, who usually has sided with Ginsburg right?

I mean we expected two justices to retire, and they were both lefties, so Borat Obama will get to replace two liberals with two more liberals. Juan McCain, friend of Pat Leahey, consistently seems to support lefty judges wherever they raise their heads.

The right -MUST- repudiate neoconservatism Sigma, or we will have one left wing warmongering party and another left wing-griping-about warmongering party.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"If American conservatives/whites don't realize this nothing else matters. That's why I'd rather have the black guy with the Muslim name from a black radical church introducing an anti-white Mestizo bigot than John McCain representing what it means to be a conservative."

I actually voted FOR Obama last November under the "worse is better" theory and also because I thought it would be better to have a Democrat president get the blame for the economy going down the drain.

[Joe]

Colorblind society? Really?

"Look, doesn't everyone here realize the basic human nature that people want to help out their own group, to the detriment of opposing groups? There is no "colorblind society." There will never be. Barack Obama is a black man, mainly supported by leftist guilty whites and single women. His appointments include many minorities and possibly lesbian white women, as well as very few white men. Obama hates white men and their power. Most of his supporters do too."--Jack

Spot on, Jack. My link goes to Larry Auster's take on Soto--he presents a great reason to vehemently oppose her: BECAUSE IF SHE WERE A WHITE MAN SHE'D BE FORCED TO WITHDRAW. This is war.

Of course Sigma is right about Obama wanting to appoint someone of Soto's "caliber."

And everyone knows she's an intellectual lightweight. So how did she get her summa at Princeton? Easy classes, easy grading for minorities, and easy AA courses like women's and black studies. Just like Barry (Mr Sociology) Obama.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013300.html

[Joe]

actually voted FOR Obama last November under the "worse is better" theory and also because I thought it would be better to have a Democrat president get the blame for the economy going down the drain.

Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | May 30, 2009 at 01:38 PM

OK, what's the worse is better theory? You hadn't figured out that Obama hates whites? Will extract more money from your tribe to pass to the NAM tribe? You voted for a dumb community organizer--at least McCain wouldn't have bought in to this "stimulus" BS.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"You hadn't figured out that Obama hates whites?"

I have, but I want other whites who are in denial to see what we see in the HBD world. If the frog realizes he's being boiled, he's more likely to jump out of the pot.

"Will extract more money from your tribe to pass to the NAM tribe?"

See above.

"You voted for a dumb community organizer--at least McCain wouldn't have bought in to this "stimulus" BS."

McCain voted for TARP and has a long history of stabbing conservatives in the back.

In fact, Obama has, for now, not been as determined to pass an amnesty as McCain was.

There is every reason to believe Mac would govern as a leftist, crony capitalist Republican - just like Bush. A leftist agenda pushed by a Republican is no different than a leftist agenda pushed by a Democrat.

Since I was being forced to choose between two liberals, I decided to set up the Democrats to get the blame when everything gets screwed up.

[Steve Johnson]

"OK, what's the worse is better theory? You hadn't figured out that Obama hates whites? Will extract more money from your tribe to pass to the NAM tribe? "

The whole form of government we have is unworkable.

McCain by being not as bad and blatant as Obama delays the day which this has to be dealt with. If even Obama doesn't cause a backlash that fundamentally changes the form of American government (like the one that happened in the 1930s which was then extended in the 1960s) the United States ends up like Mexico anyway so who cares if we get there a few months earlier.

If you think democracy is workable and capable of long-term sane government then you'll probably disagree with the "worse is better" theory.

If you think democracy is not capable of long-term sane government but cannot be replaced by something more sane you probably believe worse is actually worse.

[novaseeker]

Eh, it's well known that the law reviews who select their staffs on the basis of what's known as "writing on" do so in order to screen the politics of the writers. When I was in law school in the early 90s, our law review was strictly "grade on", so no shenanigans about ideological politics or identity politics. The move to convert the process from grading on to writing on was driven completely by politics and the desire to exclude conservatives from these journals. I know, because I was present when the arguments were being made.

[Jack]

Novaseeker - what law school did you go to? At mine, it's part grade on, part write on for all journals. In my competition entry, I did take the side of a Catholic organization saying it deserved tax-exempt status. I don't know if that will be considered too "conservative."

[HS: At my law school, you got onto law review by being in the top 10%, and only 4 slots were reserved for write-ons, which was more of a lottery than anything else. They were graded by students on law review, who admitted while drunk that they didn't put a whole lot of effort into grading them.]

[novaseeker]

Jack --

I'm Duke Law '92.

Whether the topic of your essay matters depends on who is currently on your journals. I know my ex-wife, who would have graded on at her law school if they had a grade on policy, did not write on almost certainly because she took a conservative stance on a recent abortion decision -- she's a far better writer and legal analyst than others who wrote on.

[Jack]

Yeah, I am assuming that being in NYC, anyone reading the paper is likely to be very liberal. Ours wasn't about abortion, gay marriage, or anything like that, it was about tax exempt status of religious organizations. I took the side of the religious organization, but tried to make the case that it provides aid to the elderly and poor, to make myself seem more "caring". I'm paranoid enough to think that even being pro-Christianity in any way could possibly hurt me, though that might be stretching things.

[No Mames Buey]

Jack | May 30, 2009 at 11:56 AM "Barack Obama is a black man, mainly supported by leftist guilty whites and single women. His appointments include many minorities and possibly lesbian white women, as well as very few white men. Obama hates white men and their power. Most of his supporters do too."

I acknowledge that a big portion of conservatives &/or Obama haters, apparently including Jack, disdain facts & have no use for logic.

After all, "reality & facts have a well-known liberal bias".

But I must point out a few facts here:

1 US non-latino white population= 66% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_demographics#Race_and_ethnicity

2 Assuming a rough 50-50 gender split: US non-latino white male population = 33%

3 There are 22 US cabinet & "cabinet-level" officers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet

4 9 of these 22 (40.9%) Obama-selected officers are non-latino white males: Biden, Donovan, Duncan, Emanuel, Gates, Geithner, LaHood, Orszag, Vilsack

5 non-latino white males in Obama's cabinet (40.9%) are OVER-REPRSENTED with respect to their general US population numbers (33%). Note that this doesn't even include the white Latino Salazar.

As a Progressive who voted for Obama, I have many criticisms of Obama myself, most importantly Obama's support/continuance of Bush 43's Wall Street Welfare policy, & Obama's chief Wall Street Welfare Whores/incompetents Geithner & Summers.

But any criticism I have with elected officials are based on facts. As opposed to fantasy, like Jack, claiming the half-white Obama hates white men, apparently ignoring how Obama selected many white men for his most important appointed offices.

[uselessidiot]

To leftist idiot above: Obama did not go out and pick people from the general population. Of the people he had to choose from (businessmen, politicians, policymakers), white males are far, far, more than 33%.

Of course, as a liberal, this is your first time trying to use a factual rather than emotional argument. Keep trying, and eventually enough exposure to the truth might show you the error of your ways.

[No Mames Buey]

^@ the accurately self-named uselessidiot, pls provide some source with stats to justify your statement "Of the people he had to choose from (businessmen, politicians, policymakers), white males are far, far, more than 33%."

Typical statement of the Glenn-Beck style arrogant douche tribe of conservatives (not all conservatives are of this tribe, thank God) who makes claims that were sourced from their ass, not from a fact from an objective source.

Hasn't there been media reports on how white women are achieving party or exceeding white men on certain elite occupations & graduate school admissions?

Perhaps if anyone is being "discriminated against", perhaps it's white women, who hold only 3 of 22 (13.6%) of these Obama cabinet offices: Clinton, Napolitano, Sebelius.

Certainly even Jack & uselessidiot would agree that there are not >= 3.0 "qualified" white men for each "qualified" white woman for these cabinet offices.

[Joe]

Why is it that the hostility we find in the United States among racial groups is between the NAMs and the non-NAMs?

The NAMs just aren't talented enough to discover DNA, write complicated law, or invent the Internet.

But NAMs are proud, self-confident people--surely they DESERVE a Supreme Court appointment, and entrance to Princeton.

Buey, Barack Obama hates whites: that is why he is friends with the Jeremiah Wrights of the world.

Obama is confronting the Peter principle: he needs the counsel of whites, and despises them for theit brilliance and innovation, 2 traits he totally lacks.

NAMs and non-NAMs will never get along in a society framed by the meritocracy.

[Joe]

Sigma

Can you post on the relationship between Soto's legal philosophy and critical race theory?

Thanks

[OneSTDV]

"NAMs and non-NAMs will never get along in a society framed by the meritocracy."

The funny thing, excluding the affirmative action admits, we generally have a society based on meritocracy. Charles Murray did a study taking siblings with large differences in IQ and their average incomes reflected this.

In actuality, the NAMs are cognizant of the huge racial achievement gaps. What do they do? Incessantly claim that we DON'T live in a meritocratic society. It's whitey racism!!! The NAMs will never accept HBD, so the only thing they can use to explain their lack of achievement is whitey racism. This then allows anti-white resentment to persist.

[uselessidiot]

Just to use the most available example, Congress is over 80% male and over 80% white. Only someone who has been completely brainwashed to ignore what's right in front of their eyes would not be aware of this.

[Turambar]

"Unless you are delusional, Sotomayer is a racist, as are all members of the treasonous La Raza -by definition- who’s motto is “For our race everything- for others, nothing”."

Arent there two La Raza's and she is on the mild, civic one.

"In a September, 2008 blog post in which I explained why I was voting against Obama even though he is smarter than McCain.."

One- it indicates that you ought to stop your obsequious well-ordering based on IQ score.

Two- since there is no Obama IQ score extant, you ought to update your estimate based on the enormous number of financial 'misstatements' he makes. >140 isnt credible.

[Joe]

n actuality, the NAMs are cognizant of the huge racial achievement gaps. What do they do? Incessantly claim that we DON'T live in a meritocratic society. It's whitey racism!!! The NAMs will never accept HBD, so the only thing they can use to explain their lack of achievement is whitey racism. This then allows anti-white resentment to persist.

Posted by: OneSTDV | May 31, 2009 at 12:07 AM

Which is why we cannot allow Sotomayor to get a free ride into the Supreme Court. If enough people stand up, Obama will back down.

[Joe]

LET'S MAKE SOTOMAYOR AND RICCI THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF ANTIWHITE NAM RACISM (a k a affirmative action)

An Angry Chicago Father Says America’s Top Universities Shut His Daughter Out Because She’s White; etc.

From: Philip Sanchez (e-mail him)

Spring is a time of passage for many high school seniors who will learn the admission decisions from America’s best universities.

But it can also be, as it was for my daughter, the worst time in an aspiring student’s life.

”Jane” attends one of Chicago’s best, most diverse and most academically-driven public high schools.

Over the past four years, Jane has worked hard to gain admission to one of the top schools.

She has a 3.94 cumulative GPA, a 32 score on the ACT, four years of Chinese language study, attended a Chinese university last summer at the U.S. State Department’s expense, and has achieved the highest scores on all five of her advanced placement tests.

Jane hopes to major in Foreign Affairs and continue her Chinese language education.

Despite her glowing resume, Jane received rejection letters from Yale and Stanford and was wait-listed at Georgetown's Walsh School for Foreign Service.

On the other hand, her minority fellow students were accepted into Ivy League schools even though they had significantly lower GPAs and test scores.

While those kids and their families celebrated, my hard-working daughter, overwhelmed with a sense of rejection and failure, cried her eyes out.

Simply stated, since Jane identified herself as Caucasian on her application, she was held to an entirely different standard than the minority students.

My daughter just learned that as a white person in America, the deck is stacked against her. The elite take any possible reason to choose minorities over whites.

The irony is that, even though we have a Hispanic surname because my stepfather adopted me when I was a small child, my daughter and I have always refused to put down anything other than Caucasian on questionnaires. Both of my biological parents are white.

But we know that, if she had applied as a Hispanic and with her grades and test scores, all the universities would have accepted her.

As long as the liberal elite use race to select who gets an opportunity and who doesn't, then racism will live on.

Neither my ancestors nor I had anything to do with slavery, Yet 150 years later, Jane based on her skin color paid for those transgressions from long ago.

America is headed in a direction that would make our ancestors spin in their graves. I am ashamed and completely sick to my stomach.

Peter Brimelow comments: I wrote this reader: “Please tell your daughter that the system is completely corrupt and will collapse before she reaches my (admittedly advanced) age.”

[HS: She had great grades, but obviously she was rejected because her application didn't display any leadership. If she had attended a private school instead of a public school, she would have been groomed so that that her application would have the correct leadership activities.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2005/05/advice_for_gett.html ]

[Alex H.]

"[SOTOMAYOR] was also the very best (or second best) student at all of Princeton. So what do you think Sonia's IQ is? Also 150?"

There is no such thing as "the best student" at any school. I mean say a student majors in sociology and pulls off a 4.0 or 4.3 or whatever the top is versus a chemical engineering student who pulls just a 3.3. By rank you would say the 4.0 sociology major is higher and smarter, but give me a break, a sociology 4.0- not a impossible task at all- can only work at Mickey D's (WHy you ask? BECAUSE NO ONE GIVES A RAT'S ARSE THAT YOU WROTE A STUPID ESSAY IN A STUPID CLASS THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REAL WORLD OR ANYTHING THAT MATTERS!). A 3.3 chemical engineering major actually knows something. There is so much BS in GPAs and grading in colleges that it's insane to actually think you can rank people. Most law school attendees and grads majored in soft subjects like sociology or poli sci, where you'd have to be retarded not to pull 3.7+ GPA. Try saying that to MIT engineering majors, they'd laugh their butts off at your stupidity. Do some partial derivatives or differential equations fools. Stop quoting dead philosophers as if that makes you THINK you are smarter. Sotomayor is basically your run-of-the-mill "soft major" graduate, buoyed by AA and a perennial minority-favorable Ivy League climate.