LatinaLista — On the heels of the news (and please forgive the pun) that Judge Sotomayor fractured her ankle at La Guardia airport enroute to Capitol Hill for more meetings, one conservative who has been having a field day poking fun at her had no reservations about hitting her yet again — even as she hobbled along the corridors of Congress on crutches and in a boot brace.
The talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, who has made it his mission to make race the major factor in Sotomayor’s quest for the Supreme Court seat thought he was being clever in his analysis of Sotomayor’s injury.
But being clever is not Limbaugh’s forte and if anything, Limbaugh’s constant attacks reveal just how fractured the Republican party really is.
In referring to Sotomayor’s injury today, Limbaugh said:
RUSH: By the way, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has broken her ankle. She fractured her ankle in the airport. She stumbled in the airport on her way to Senate meetings. Now, the question is, would a white male judge have fractured his ankle in the same circumstances at the same airport on the way to Senate meetings? (snip) Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor fractured her ankle in an airport on the way to Senate meetings. Given Sotomayor’s preference for Latinas in every walk of life, I hope she can find “a wise Latina” doctor to set that ankle as opposed to an average white doctor because the wise Latina doctor is much richer experience with broken ankles, and would probably do a much better job of setting that ankle than an average white doctor who has not lived the rich experiences of a Latina med student and resident.
Limbaugh’s remark is naturally offensive but it’s also twisting her words to plant the impression that she said one thing over another.
His remark that he hopes she can find a “wise Latina” doctor because a Latina doctor would do a better job setting the judge’s ankles than an average white doctor is a blatant attempt to further his agenda to focus on her ethnicity.
Because as we all know, Mr. Limbaugh doesn’t care which doctors he goes to — as long as they just handed over pain killers.
In fact, in an article detailing Limbaugh’s surrender for committing fraud — “Prosecutors had contended that Limbaugh engaged in “doctor-shopping” — that is, deceiving several doctors to receive overlapping prescriptions for painkillers.”
Limbaugh’s sad addiction is in his past and bringing it up at this time does nothing but stir emotion in those people who see celebrities as those who abuse the system for their own benefit — much like how Limbaugh’s constant references to Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” statement fans the flames of those who say they see past ethnicity but, in truth, that’s all they see.
Limbaugh would do well to shift his focus to areas that truly determine a person’s ability to serve on the Supreme Court — their track record in the courts.
On that, Sotomayor has more than proven herself, and in turn, it’s a much harder target for someone like Limbaugh to ridicule and diminish.
After all, we’re reminded today that one’s own experiences aren’t the only factors that may influence a judge’s decisions but also who are their campaign contributors.
West Virginia State Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that elected judges must step aside from cases when large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias.
By a 5-4 vote in a case from West Virginia, the court said that a judge who remained involved in a lawsuit filed against the company of the most generous supporter of his election deprived the other side of the constitutional right to a fair hearing.
The judge in question is Judge Brent Benjamin — a white judge.
In this case, it would seem a wise Latina judge would know better.
Comment(8)
Horace
Marisa, obviously you have no sense of humor. And you aren’t very perceptive as to Rush’s point. I guess that I should make it more graphic for you. Would you rather be treated by a doctor who had been chosen for medical school based upon superior qualifications, or one who was chosen based upon some racial quota system, as is often done today? Also, Rush was referring to her summary judgment on the case of the firefighters who, although most qualified by way of their test scores were denied promotion for the sake of diversity.
“The judge in question is Judge Brent Benjamin — a white judge.
In this case, it would seem a wise Latina judge would know better.”
This is a racist statement, as it implies a relationship between race/ethnic group and intelligence or judgment. Imagine the case to be reversed, the judge being Latina. If the case were reversed, how would you feel if I said that a white male would have done better? You really don’t get it, do you, Marisa?
Liquidmicro
The judge in question is Judge Brent Benjamin — a white judge.
In this case, it would seem a wise Latina judge would know better.
Might I suggest you look to how the Dems treated Jeff Sessions in the 80’s. Might I also suggest you look to how the Dems treated Roberts and Alioto.
Now, what of Sotomayor and her “conflict of Interest” in the case of Ricci? She pushed for AA during the Marino vs Ortiz case while she was a board member/attorney for PRLDEF, she seems to have done the same in Ricci under the guise of the City of New Haven having a possible “disparate-impact” case brought against them.
Texan123
Rush Limbaugh often “baits” his listeners with outrageous remarks. These remarks are relished by the liberal media and have contributed to his success.
That said, why can a Latina view everything from a Latina perspective and not be called RACIST?
Hispanics are the most racist when it comes to special interest groups. All they care about are Hispanics. When will anglos get a special interest group to protect the rights of the white race?
Texano78704
Should anyone really care what a gas bag like Limbaugh has to say? As the acting head of the Republican Party, he is only making it more difficult for the party to regain any semblance of national import.
Horace
“…As the acting head of the Republican Party,….”
I like the dems attempt at smearing the Republican party by picking the most vocal and extreme (they think so) radio commentator on the air, even though he has never been elected to the party leadership. In effect it is a sort of wishful thinking they think will become fact if they repeat it enough. I could just as easily pick out that idiot Joe Biden and anoint him their leader. If you don’t like Rush, and he’s so outrageous that he’s telling all lies, just ignore him. The dems can’t stand Rush because he listens and provides an analysis based upon the facts, and the facts reflect negatively upon dem programs. Most dems who don’t like him have never listened to his show, they’re just drones who refuse to hear both sides of the issues because the truth doesn’t reflect their preconceived notions.
Alessandra
I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, but my understanding is that he is a talk show host, an entertainer who expresses his opinion in an entertaining manner. Some might not agree with his POV or appreciate his humor, but they have the choice to change the station (like I do). I’m not saying that he is not expressing his true opinion, but that the manner in which he does it is meant to garner ratings and play to his audience.
On of the greatest values of America is that of our freedom of speech. We have all of these disparate opinions and POVs and everyone is free to express them and express their disagreement of them. We should not take this right for granted as many people in other parts of the world do not even know what this is.
I also think that we are all products of our upbringing, environment, and experiences and that there is nothing wrong with having a different perspective than someone who had a different experience. That makes us a richer nation I believe. But when a person sits on the bench, in order to do their job in the most professional manner, they need to have the ability to set aside their personal biases (which we all have) and render a fair and just ruling based on the law.
That is one of the differences between the judicial branch and legislative branches of government. In the legislative branch, where laws and policies are made, there is more latitude for personal experiences to affect one’s thought processes. But the judicial branch is a different story; there, the goal is to remain impartial and objective inasmuch as it is humanly possible.
I think the word “racist” gets tossed around entirely too much. It is not racist to advocate for the special interests of one’s own racial or ethnic group; it is, however, ethnocentric. The two things can be related, but are not identical. To say that one group has the right to advocate for their interests while another one does not is not “racist.” It is a double standard.
On Sotomayor specifically: her statement about a “wise Latina woman” being able to render a “better” (not merely “different” but “better”) judgment than a white man was clearly a racist statement. If a white man were to say that he could render a better judgment than a Latino, there would be no question of its being a racist statement. However, does this mean that Sotomayor is a racist? Not in my opinon because a person should not be judged soley on one or two statements. What really counts is how she has ruled in the past. She has a very extensive record which can be examined. I would say that she needs to be questioned about her statements and writings, but there’s a difference between what she says and writes, and how she rules. Again, it goes back to the ability to be professional and set aside your innate bias and rule objectively and on the basis of law.
irma
Would you rather be treated by a doctor who had been chosen for medical school based upon superior qualifications, or one who was chosen based upon some racial quota system, as is often done today?
Racial quotas have been around a long time. Before the 1950s, there were quotas to EXCLUDE qualified Jews from entry into medical school in the United States. This is why the Albert Einstein School of Medicine was established in New York. I am sure there were a lot of doctors practicing back then who WERE not the most qualified applicants to their medical school. They got in because a QUALIFIED Jew was kept out.
Rush is only against quotas when they dont favor his group of choice.
Traci
Irma made this comment: “Racial quotas have been around a long time. Before the 1950s, there were quotas to EXCLUDE qualified Jews from entry into medical school in the United States. This is why the Albert Einstein School of Medicine was established in New York. I am sure there were a lot of doctors practicing back then who WERE not the most qualified applicants to their medical school. They got in because a QUALIFIED Jew was kept out.”
So it’s good policy in your mind to send the less competent of two people to medical school to make up for past discrimination? Think about that the next time you go to your doctor.
When did Rush ever say that only white people should be selected over other groups? I challenge you to cite any instance where he’s said such a thing. You can’t because it’s in your imagination. You hear what you want to, not what is actually said. Rush has always called for merit based selection in all aspects of social competition, and for you to say to the contrary is a lie. He’s merely claiming that doing otherwise is discrimination against white people, and that’s true. This is a zero sum game, as it is necessary to take from one racial group to satisfy another, even if you have reparations in mind. You people make things up based upon your preconceived notions, not actual facts.
Comments are closed.