Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Nope

Nope. Maybe she looked a little less 'fish' and a little too 'stud'.
Nope. Even though she has a Rachael Maddow look going for her.

Nope. W.A.S.P. is out of style.

Yes.
C'mon. You knew it was going to be a woman - and not a Black one.
Pamela Karlan, Elena Kagan and Kathleen Sullivan all had that part of the questionnaire down pat.
But the ideal candidate for the next Supreme Court Judge would have to fit as much of the imagined criteria possible for an "Inclusive" administration.
(Female, Lesbian, Ethnic and Atheist.)
Not that Sonia Sotomayor (or anyone else on the shortlist) is a lesbian or an Atheist - but she is an ethnic female.
Is it a form of Affirmative-Action?
Sure.
Is all Affirmative-Action beneficial to those it is intended to help?
I only have a thousands words in response to that.

5 comments:

D.J. said...

I watched a white male intelligent republican have a meltdown about this subject on the Ed Show today. When i retold the story and was asked if the host of the show cut the guys throat, I said no. The host put the knife on the table and the guest picked up the knife and proceeded to hack and slash on himself without any assistance.

The fight of the white man to keep this country unbalanced is fun to watch......

FreeMan said...

WOW I have to agree with DJ as this statement "The fight of the white man to keep this country unbalanced is fun to watch......" is pretty much enough said.

RunningMom said...

I don't care what color she is, I'm happy to see a woman in the seat.

Men of all colors have been running things far too long. They get promoted more, they get more perks, they earn more pay, higher pensions, etc., etc., etc.

Mr. Noface said...

LMAO! That dude never smiles...ever!

nickelforathought said...

i'm glad it was a woman and a woman of color, but i'm still disgruntled for two reasons.

1)Sotomayor has an unpleasant history when it comes to protecting writers (in one case, in 1998 i believe, she firmly showed that she supports big publishers over struggling freelancers, which pises me off as a writer) and her stance on abortion, according to her past record, is wishy-washy. The latter bothers me because in my mind, you either believe a woman should have the right to choose, unequivocally, or you don't. There should be no middle ground on that one.

2) I'm tired of Obama's blatant disregard for black women (and black people, I'd argue). His cabinet is pretty much completely white-dominated, which is something we haven't seen in 16 years. it is unacceptable in the 21st century. his attorney general (I don't mean to be unfair)...i'm not sure he counts. and Susan Rice, the UN amabassador, is not really part of the cabinet, altough she holds cabinet rank. i just think, as i'd begun to think last april after his race speech, that the brother simply uses blackness to serve his political purposes but has no real concern for the people (and how can he? he wasn't raised by black people) despite his marriage to Michelle (personally, i was voting for her anyway, when i voted for him). i think he chose Sotomayor because he thought she'd be easier to assimilate into our nation's ideas of what is common and acceptable(based on race), into the mainstream. he pretty much said it, when he stated that he wanted someone with a "common touch." she's a political moderate and she's a latina. god-forbid he'd chosen a black woman: that just would have been way too progressive of him, not that choosing a latina isn't progressive. but it took our nation too long to accept Michelle, and look how she had to warp herself into some sort of Mother Diety in order to even become acceptable (not that there isn't something trangressive about her taking on such an image). i find it hilarious and exciting (in a good way) that Sotomayor's proving to be anything but easy to assimilate into the white mainstream.

Anyway, sorry about the rambling. Good post.