JW – Your KKK hood is showing on this one. Guess which drugs are most prevalent and killing white kids – hillbilly heroin or oxycodone and hydrocodone. Drug overdoses are from prescription drugs, not the 'ghetto drugs, like heroin or crack. In the Pasco county area in Florida, of duty sheriffs are guarding pharmacies because 'white hillbillies' are robbing elderly customers and the drug counter for Oxycontin.
http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/prevalert/v6/4….
Todays 'crack whores' are your neighbors lilly white daughter or son strung out on prescription opiates. They steal freom your house or car to by prescription drugs on the black market…

As a typical liberal, you see people by their skin color, ethnic group or some other “victim” status.

Conservatives see only a person who either has character or lacks it.

One day, people like you will look beyond your prejudices and stereotypes to see the actual person behind the façade of the category you put them in. The world will be a better place once you change your racist views.

A lot of folks are talking about her quote and saying that she didn't mean it like it came out, etc — I think she meant it; I think she should mean it; I think the statement is pretty right on.

It angers me to no end that it is just assumed that, effectively, a white man has no race and has no gender, and does not come to the bench/job/whatever with any preconceived notions about gender and race. This is obviously untrue. A white man comes into his experiences — in whatever context — as a person with white skin, and as a person of the male gender. Their decisions as judges, their decisions and actions as workers, managers, social beings, is all affected by their experiences as white people, and their experiences as male people. Since the birth of this country, being a white male means having the privilege associated with whiteness and maleness, as well as an inherent interest in keeping themselves as the privileged class. Somehow this obvious fact has not kept any of them from serving as judges for time immesurable. If Sotomayor also has an inherent interest in making sure there's a path for people of color or women to enter that realm of the priviledged according to their abilities, quite frankly, I don't have any problem with that.

If Sotomayor's experiences, many of which would be literally impossible for a white male to have, color her judicial philosophy, allow her to look at a situation or a law from a different perspective than a while man might, how is that any different than what white male judges have been doing for the last 200 years? Why should the judgment of the white male be the standard to which all others must be measured?

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php

Since Obama's inauguration, Republican identification has increased and is outpacing Democrat.

Even Joe's usually reliable propaganda source, Gallup, has R and D most recently in a dead heat.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

A bit farther up this thread I quoted something from Slate about the firefighters case:

New Haven's decision may sound like blatant racial favoritism, but in fact the city rejected the firefighter exam because the test violated Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that's inadvertent as well as intentional. Ricci's claim is that the city's effort to comply with Title VII is itself race discrimination (under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and under Title VII itself).

I'm sure you're right that this will be a source of controversy.

Apparently I wasn’t too clear with my comment.

What I was alluding to was using Sotomayer’s position in the Ricci case (where she sided against the white and Hispanic firefighters) as part of a campaign that exploits reverse racism while regular working class people are afraid of loosing their jobs.

Democrats are touting how Republicans will loose Latino votes if they oppose Sotomayer, but intelligent strategists know that McCain’s pro illegal immigration policy resulted in the lowest Hispanic vote total ever.

Choosing between a slightly higher Hispanic vote or regaining masses of lower-middle class working whites, the answer is clear.

I don't see the world the way you do, so sorry if I messed up on one of your details. But aren't you up there in the comments to this very thread talking about her like she's an illegal alien?

To quote you: “the perception of Democrats tossing regular working people out into the street in order to give jobs to illegal aliens would be a powerful one.”

Or is it just the fact that she's Hispanic that's supposed to scare all those working class white people? (And if so, do you think that will work on all the working class white people who voted for the black guy to be president?)

Ah…….OK. That’s good to know.

Please let in on any other news you come upon.

Sotomayor is not an illegal alien.

Not only did Obama send his kids to private school, he eliminated vouchers so that his kids wouldn’t have to associate with few poor children that were fortunate enough to have been there.

I wonder if they clear the streets of any poor kids before driving the First Children to school? You certainly wouldn’t want to offend their senses by the sight of some D.C. waif walking the gauntlet of crack whores and dealers every day.

Newt, Rush and various others see an opportunity to use Obama’s pick as a poster girl for bypassing working class whites for minorities in hiring and promotions.

During the upcoming midterm elections, with unemployment reaching record levels and employment security at record low levels, the perception of Democrats tossing regular working people out into the street in order to give jobs to illegal aliens would be a powerful one.

The Hispanic vote is important, but not anywhere near as important as the suburbs.

New Haven's decision may sound like blatant racial favoritism, but in fact the city rejected the firefighter exam because the test violated Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that's inadvertent as well as intentional. Ricci's claim is that the city's effort to comply with Title VII is itself race discrimination (under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and under Title VII itself).

There's plenty of coverage of this topic out there, including at The Volokh Conspiracy and SCOTUSblog.

Question — Why Does Anybody Care About Anything “Leroy” Has To Say Anyway?
Newt Leroy Gingrich has been quite the mainstream media (”MSM”) darling over the last few months, hasn’t he? The man who holds the record fo…