Breaking: Sotomayor Made Same “Wise Woman” Speech In 1990s — And No One Objected
I’ve just obtained a speech that Sonia Sotomayor gave in 1994, in which she made a comment virtually identical to the “wise Latina” one from 2001 that has generated so much controversy.
And though the 1994 speech was disclosed to Republican Senators as part of her confirmation for Court of Appeals in 1998, there’s no sign that anyone objected to it in any way.
The revelation raises fresh questions as to why the 2001 comments generated the controversy they did, and suggests that the comments are not as controversial as her critics claim.
A copy of the 1994 speech was included with the questionnaire she submitted for the 1998 confirmation. A Sotomayor supporter sent both to me.
Here’s what she said in the 1994 speech:
“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”
That’s virtually identical to the comments from 2001 that have generated days and days of controversy.
There’s no sign that any Republican Senators — seven of whom are still in the Senate — had any objection whatsoever to the comments when they reviewed them in 1998.
Update: Edited slightly for accuracy.
Update II: Ben Smith makes the point that while this revelation does undercut current GOP outrage, it “also makes it harder for the White House to cast it as a slip of the tongue.” Michael Goldfarb argues that it makes the “poor choice of words” defense inoperable.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
I am not sure this helps.
Let me clarify and repeat that I never saw anything wrong with her comment to begin with. But now its going to be much harder to say it was just worded wrong if she had said it more than once. Of course thats probably why they never should have walked it back to begin with. I can pretty much predict what comes next.
Gov Pawlenty just said he would sign Franken’s certificate if State Supreme Ct instructs him to do so!
I would guess because of the magical word, “Latina” That just raised the stakes and stoked the fires of racism or something.. not on the part of Judge Sotomayor, but on the part of the Republicans.
agreed Annette that it’s missing “Latina” piece, but the quote is identical in terms of the legal ideas that generated so much controversy — the more recent time she said it
….and SG, I think you’re right that it will make it tougher to argue that she misspoke. I wouldn’t be surprised if folks grab on to that
Republicans may be hypocrites (duh), but Sotomayor makes some pretty dumb statements for an otherwise smart woman.
“Republicans may be hypocrites (duh), but Sotomayor makes some pretty dumb statements for an otherwise smart woman”
Care to explain to me just exactly what is dumb about this statement?
You’re aware that Thomas has said almost exactly the same thing, as has Alito, right?
Here’s what I don’t get – why are we letting the Republicans lead us down this stupid path after a red herring, over and over again?
Greg?
Dumb Sotomayor statement: “Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they’re looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] — I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, and, I’m … you know.” [laughter]
Agreed that those on the left should not be jumping to defend these statements. They just “sound” wrong to your average person: “34 percent of respondents said the fact that Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court justice was a “very important factor” in Obama’s pick, 60 percent said a nominee’s legal qualifications are more important than achieving diversity on the Supreme Court.” I think that Sotomayor support who sent this to Greg just did her a disservice.
Greg,
I have to say this statement is a bit of a double edged sword. While it is true, that republicans didn’t object to it in the past, this becomes a problem for the administration as well in that they can’t dismiss the statement as a “one off”.
Sbj-
She was right in that statement. I am going to defend it, because as others have stated, the Court of Appeals IS where policy is made. Perhaps you don’t understand how the legal system works, but most cases don’t end up at the Supreme Court.
@Chris: It’s a dumb statement because she herself says “I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law.”
“Care to explain to me just exactly what is dumb about this statement?
You’re aware that Thomas has said almost exactly the same thing, as has Alito, right?”
First, if your best defense is to cite Thomas and Alito, then you probably realize that your defense of her statement is weak.
My point is simply that making these statements was not in her own best interests from the point of view of career advancement, and they are patently false.
Neither a woman nor a man reaches a better decision merely because of the richness of their experience of a particular gender, and the same is true of race and ethnicity. The decision making process is far more complicated than that. Otherwise, we could merely choose people based on their gender, race, or ethnicity, as long as they met some minimum test of wisdom. That is the opposite of what we are attempting to achieve as a society.
As Martin Luther King once said, people should not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I’m confident that Sotomayor knows that, but she likely engaged in hyperbole in order to make a point and have that point noticed.
Given that she has probably thought about a being a USSC justice since she was first appointed by GHWB to the federal bench, that is a really dumb thing to do because it creates unnecessary problems for the POTUS who nominated her and her supporters in the Senate.
That’s why Obama has already tried to walk back her previous statement about Latina decision making.
Should be “Minow” not “Minnow”
Rich
.
Care to explain why a Supreme Ct of all white men upheld slavery, segregation, and denying a woman’s right to vote then? I am just asking because if you are honest with yourself I think you would find it hard to believe that having a minority or a woman on the court wouldn’t have changed the outcome of Plessy Vs Ferguson or countless *** discrimination lawsuits prior to 1972. Hey, maybe that IS what you believe, but I reject that notion. What she said was right in the full context of what she said. She made no absolute pronouncements but it would be my hope as well that a black man with the richness of his experience would come to a better conclusion on racial discrimination cases than a white man who never lived that life.
.
BTW you do realize that slavery was essentially legitimized in the Constitution correct?
.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html
Wednesday stupid? The racist wasn’t contending for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court in the 90’s. Sheesh.
Both of her statements were born out of her belief that she is better than others, that somehow her place in life allows her to reach a better conclusion than others. Since I had a superior education compared to her, I’m more qualified to sit on the court. She does not belong on the bench, let alone the Supreme Court.
@ Tena (2:00 pm): I have to agree wholeheartedly. We’re once again letting Republicans, and fringe ones at that, define the debate.
Why aren’t people talking about the fact that Sotomayor has a sterling judicial record? Frankly, we should not be wasting time trying to refute bogus charges of “racism” (”reverse” — whatever that means, or otherwise), bogus charges of “sexism,” bogus “character deficiencies,” “temperament” concerns. There’s nothing to be gained from diving into the mud with people who sling mud for a living or for political gain. We should be working to redirect the conversation to a higher plane. Sotomayor is absolutely qualified for the job. No one who has personally worked with her has said that her temperament is unsuited for the job; in fact, they’ve said the opposite. (People questioning her temperament remain in the shadows. To my knowledge, not one has come forward publicly.) Bottom line: Focus on her positives — intellect, temperament, experience, respect from peers, respect from previous clerks, etc., and leave the nonsense to the people who prefer to delve into such foolishness. They are even doing a fine job of refuting and undermining themselves. They don’t need our help.
In 1998 she wasn’t being nominated for the Supreme Court. For Republican Senators to have not objected to it then is no different than Anita Hill not reporting alleged sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas until he was nominated, something his detractors had few problems with at his hearings.
I guess it was a “Bad choice of words” twice?
OOPS!!
This is such a side issue. Go through her years and years of her opinions and find the “wise Latina” ones that depart from governing law in ways you find radical and frightening and gynocentric and downright muy loca. You won’t find any. What you will find is that she’s smart and thorough and fair. It’s saddening that everyone just wants to haggle over a few words given to an affinity group years ago instead of doing the harder work of, gasp, reading.
Because her type of reasoning led to Plessy v. Ferguson, among other horrible decisions, and it’s much more important for a member of SCOTUS to believe we are all equal and one people, Americans.
Yawn. Who cares what a judge said 20 years ago. People say things all the time that are politically incorrect.
Get over it, Southern White Males. Er I mean GOP.
Greg, I’m sorry but who f****** cares what Ben Smith or Michael Goldfarb thinks?
Dumb Sotomayor statement: “Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they’re looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] — I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, and, I’m … you know.” [laughter]
Neither a woman nor a man reaches a better decision merely because of the richness of their experience of a particular gender, and the same is true of race and ethnicity. The decision making process is far more complicated than that
From USCOURTS.GOV:
Code of Conduct for US Judges
Canon #2 : A Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
B. A judge should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should not lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others; nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
C. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, ***, religion, or national origin.
It is abundantly clear that she has violated this canon of conduct, and should resign immediatly.
You people realize a Supreme Court Judge Interepts the law. A (SCOTUS) judge does not decide who should win based on what they think should be fair, or right. They are there to stick to the law. Now if the law is unfair call a Rep, or a senator, not a judge.
Greg,
The answer to your question about controvery is obvious. No one gives a rip about circut judge appointments. Also, the only reason we found out about the speech in 2001 is because some blogger dug it up somewhere. All the speeches referenced in the questionaire must be made available. How can we get them? They are not on the internet. The speeches have provocative title’s. Like “A Judge’s Guide to More Effective Advocacy”. I thought the lawyers were the advocates? And “Need for Ethnic Identity” I garantee there is controvercial stuff in those speeches but we cant read them. The Senate or whomever has these speeches must release them and the questioniare.
No sign any Republican Senators objected? 24 voted no Greg. You wouldn’t know one way or the other if they objected to this comment in 1998. They looked over these speeches and voted no so they must have found something in there they didn’t like.
I found the questionnaire from 1997 on the Judiciary committee website but I still demand that the speeches referenced as being attached be made public. They are not in there.
Many statements and positions go uncontested until such time as they need to be resurrected. The fact that little or nothing was said at the time does not change Sotomayors comments. Perhaps things were said and not carried by media.
Only the dishonest and terminally stupid ever gave credence to the official lie that this was a slip of the tongue or an inartful choice of words or a comment taken out of context. Her entire premise in the 2001 speech was that she disagreed with SDO that a woman justice and male justice would and should come to the same conclusion under the law. It created a bit of a stir at the time to the point that another liberal appellate judge believed it was necessary to disagree publicly. She was not chastised in the least and did not edit her comments for written publication in the racist rag published by la raza. The administration is just backing off now to get her approved, much in the same way obama pretended to back off his own similar lefty beliefs to get elected. Fool me once ….
“Neither a woman nor a man reaches a better decision merely because of the richness of their experience of a particular gender, and the same is true of race and ethnicity.”
That’s so damn stupid – how many judges do you know? There is not a human being on this earth who can so much as sign their name without it being informed by who they are and the sum of their experience.
That’s all she said.
I did appeals when I practiced law. I also wrote opinions for the state Court of Appeals in Dallas as a staff attorney. You can always tell which judge wrote which opinion, just like you can tell which lawyer wrote which brief. Thinking is thinking and you can only use what you have in your head to do it. Writing is writing.
Now – this country has courts overflowing with White Male Christians – for 300 years y’all ran every damn thing. You bet there is a different way to seeing things – a Hispanic woman has a different experience than the average over-privileged white male.
Deal with it.
“in the racist rag published by la raza. ”
Well, the racist calls La Raza racist. Good going – stay classy.
That’s the story here huh Greg? Nobody objected then? Not that she herself walked this back, not to mention Obama himself saying she “misspoke”. Now we find she’s felt her double x chromosomes made her a superior judge decades ago and the big story is nobody objected then. Hysterical.
Good work, Greg!
Sheesh, Sargent, either you or the Sotomayor supporter who gave you the earlier speech must be an idiot. Of course, it undermines the Obama “she mispoke” line, and most of the other “what she really meant” defenses as well. Here’s a challenge: since she used close to the same words twice, wanna bet she used them three times?
Go for the trifecta, Greg!
As a white male, I say she has nothing to apologize for. As a matter of fact, she’s 100% correct. I applaud another perspective on the bench; the asses that are there now (you know who you are) are the best proof you can get. And, I dont give a rat’s petute WHAT the rethugs think: They almost ruined my country and have forfeited any right to do anything but STFU.
I assume you are joking – if a man had said a white man would make a better decision, not once but twice would that make it okay? All this does is confirm what we already knew – this woman is a racist, sexist bigot – thank you for helping to expose her.
I think she will make a fine supreme court judge. I don’t think these comments are that big of a deal, at least not to keep her off. I do think there are double standards here. If a man said men could make wiser decisions or if a white person said that with their backgrounds they would make a wiser decision than a latina, well all hell would break loose. And I laugh at liberals who act so sanctimonious about this issue. If the shoe was on the other foot they would be screaming louder than the conservatives. Hispanic groups and women’s group would be on all the media shows talking about what a racist the person was. Both parties use whatever they can to their advantage. I get tired of it and it shows that we’re all a bunch of hypocorites….
Here’s the deal. The Democrats made the decision with Bork to do whatever it takes, fair or foul, to keep conservatives off the Supreme Court. The Republicans have been slow in returning the favor. But maybe they are beginning to realize that while they can’t beat Obama’s nominees, they might be able to keep the more ideological ones off by Borking them whenever possible.
As for “wise Latina” – what self-indulgent romantic foolishness it is for a grownup to say such a thing. Sure, we all bring our unique experience to whatever we do. It broadens us in some directions, and limits us in others. But wisdom does not reside in being a “Latina” or anything else. It lies in specific individual people, and damned few of them. An essential part of real wisdom lies in understanding that, which Sotomayer obviously does not.
I hope that they can keep this woman off the Court. Surely there are potential liberal nominees with more sense than she seems to have.
I dont really care about the wise latina comment. Im so sick of every liberal dragging up every little statement in or out of context, and Im willing to have that apply to both sides. The appellate court is where policy is made theory is far more troubling to me as an attorney. The appellate court is where the Constitution is interpreted, Judge! And the comments about Thomas only being on the court because he is black are troubling (if reported accurately, but who knows with our media which is more concerned with creating news than reporting it).
Judge Sotomayer belongs to La Raza which is affiliated with
another organization called MEChA, this organization has been called the KKK of the Hispanics, this is bound to come up. “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada” This is a very famous saying and it has to be explained how it is she can belong to organizations like this, she has to denounce this statement; the article in the Stanfordview is a little gut wrenching. There is a lot of information on these organizations, Google it up.
http://stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXI/Issue_2/Editorial/editorial1.shtml
I think Sotomeyer should be treated as fairly as the Dems treated Clarence Thomas and that other latino Miguel Estrada. In other words, be a good Dem and crucify her!
To whoever said that Sotomayor has a sterling judicial record, you’re crazy. She has been overturned 60% of the time.
Secondly, all this about different perspectives is ****. This is a judge in a court, not some opinion panel. If you want to make arguments about differing backgrounds and “life stories” (what a bunch of bs that is) in the ELECTED legislature, then there is some room for that. But such and argument has no place in any court, especially not the supreme court. They are NOT supposed to bring in their biases and that is the whole purpose of our court system. In fact, as was written by Andy McCarthy of National Review Online, someone who said these things couldn’t even serve on a JURY!
Oh and for the undereducated person who complained about an all white court upholding segregation, I’ll agree that they were wrong, but it has nothing to do with them being white, it has to do with them being idiots. The Warren court, which heard Brown v Board of Education, was also all white men.
And no, slavery was not legitimized in the Constitution, it was tolerated so that we could get the southern states to ratify it. The Constitution actually allowed for slavery’s eventual end (or at least outlaw) in this country, and eventually in many others around the world.
As to why little to no objection was made to Sotomayor’s earlier comment, I’m willing to be that it’s mostly due to the Republicans then being as big a bunch of sissies and unwilling to stand up to them, just like we have now. We need real conservatives to lead our Republican party again.
Sotomayer’s statements at a minimum make her a “group elitist”…basically, a supremacist. The Left wing theology that group identity translates into automatic competence…is likewise, a form of bigotry. Progressives like to play God by making gender or skin color attributes of qualification, when they should not be. Capability is NOT a function of victim-group emapthies. The Left wing construct is not only shamefully flawed; but the collectivist ideal that the group can grind individuals under their boot on the basis of STEREOTYPE IMAGERY—-is a direct danger to free peoples. Reject Sotomayer, run her bigoted rump out of Washington! (that said, she’s almost certain to get confirmed, as from media to the political class, all must now operate as sycophants to despotism in infancy)
Thogwummpy, great post, but don’t accord libs their delusional self-given title of “progressive”. It’s a meaningless word they use to make their views sound better and more justifiable.
@Rich. Have you ever researched how many black Americans were slave owners? Does not make it right, but to suggest it is only the white man who supported slavery is simply a false statement.
There were many in this country and still a greater number in other countries.
The argument is not about past race relations, it is about current appointment to the Supreme Court. If one says the rights of their heritage is not more import than the rights of other, I simply do not believe them. This is the same as saying someone family is just as important as their own. Is this racialism? It could be considered as such I suppose. If I wish to care for those of similar background over those who as not of the same as me, does this make me a racist?
To think that Sotomoyer would look out for others outside of her personal background just the same as she would for those of her heritage is the same as saying she doesn’t feel her heritage is important. It is not possible to be completely impartial.
The “white Men” how drafted the constitution were partial to their race and heritage and their work created a a great country. So great that lots of want to belong, and should have the opportunity.
So we will continue to learn and wonder if conforming to the constitution makes us American or changing it makes us American. How much can we change until we are no longer what we wish we were.
Ed, to add to what you started with, most slaves taken from Africa were sold to the Europeans by other Africans. Also, there were many FREE blacks who fought for the south in the civil war. Fun facts.
Anyway, while there is some truth to the comment that it is impossible to be completely impartial, which is why there are nine justices and not just one, there is a difference between slight biases guiding your views and overt philosophy that one race or gender is better than another. The latter case fits Sotomayer.
Reaganite, you are preaching to the choir. They are many fun facts surrounding the Civil War period of the USA/CSA. How did it ever become the prevailing logic to believe the worst american war was fought about slavery. It was fought over states rights.
I believe California has the right to spend themselves into financial ruin, I just dont want to pay for it.
But I digress.
My point is simply that a Latino judge will have preference in any decision where racialism is concerned. Anyone will favor their race. It is to what extent is acceptable. In the 1950’s the US did not confront these issues. It was then a county which many of the worlds people wanted to be. If those mean old white guys would only give up some ground. They have. There is much integration in California and they have the worlds seventh largest economy. What a great experiment. Now we are going to have to send federal money (money from everyone) to allow the larges welfare experiment to continue.
I know, it is because there is not the same opportunity there as there was in the days of Regan or the California gold rush. The Latinos of California need your help as they have proven the wise decisions of Latinos.
Now jump on me for being racist, but then explain why the once greatest growth state in the US is broke. Please explain how fiscal conservatism is causing this.
Hell, while you are at please explain how NAFTA and CAFTA can improve US wealth for the middle class. CRA is responsible for people owning houses they cannot afford. Explain this one to me as well. Both Democrats and Republicans supported these causes.
Ok, I am a “Latino” and I think that her comments were at the very least unwise. Not everyone is an open book, a lot of people keep their private toughts to themselves yet some (as she did) open it up. I believe she stated what is in her heart and mind, you don’t just blurt out something like that. She also shouldn’t have made those other statments while being taped, that wasn’t smart. However, it was revealing. I believe in this case, what you see and what you’ve heard is what you’ll get. It won’t matter either way because she will get confirmed, but anyone who doesn’t believe that she spoke her mind is being intellectually dishonest with themselves. Yes she has a lot of accomplishments but the law was not meant to be interpreted by emphaty.
Sotomayor Made Anti-Male Comments in 1994, Media Mostly Mum
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/06/04/sotomayor-made-anti-male-comments-1994-media-mostly-mum
Mark Levin Says Damaging New Sotomayor Texts Emerging: Will Media Notice?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/06/04/mark-levin-says-damaging-new-sotomayor-texts-emerging-will-media-notice
What?!? Does Soto-lady only have one speech?
If she’s so “wise” it might be better if she let others toot her horn. And, by the way, here’s a clue, wisdom doesn’t spring forth from one’s hormones and gender or the richness of her experience as a”latina”. She’s a dope who has to keep reminding people how wise she is and to deflect analysis of that statement, she couples it to her gender and ethnicity making the statement bulletproof. Anyone challenging it is a racist or a sexist. How clever can you get. Obama’s perfect nominee.
Many of the clueless on this blog won’t examine the “decisions” that were overturned. They are the same ones screaming for facts. She is the embodiment of the “New Racism” plaguing this country.
Some of the posts name calling Republicans “racist” instead of honestly looking at Sotomayor’s comments and dealing with her bigoted racism are hilarious! No wonder Obama got elected! Too bad there are no qualifications whatosever to vote.
Sotomayer is a racist. This beastly woman has NO business being honored with a Supreme Court appointment. I question her allegience to the Constitution and I believe she subcribes to the disgusting group La Raza.
Sotomayer is a perfect choice for Chairman Obama. What more would you expect from a naïve communtity agitator who despises the history and heritage of this great nation? I pray that all the fools who voted for Chairman Obama see the folly of his lack of knowledge of history. Anybody that sits in Jerkamiah Wright’s cursed congregation for twenty years; it is predictable that the simpleton would nominate such a **** like Sotomayer.
Not in support of Sotomayer’s confirmation to the Supreme Court !!!!
Here’s why Related Topics:
Calls Grow for Bush’s then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to to Quit . Now This same person, Alberto Gonzales, tells America that choosing Sotomayer is in America’s best interest. And Sotomayer stated her interpretation of American laws and Judicial system is better simply because she is a LATINA. This is a racist statement.
Papers suggest Gonzales lied over sacking of judges – Republicans fear then president Bush will lose ability to lead.
The widening revolt makes the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a growing liability for Mr Bush, who is struggling to hold the line on his policies from Iraq to climate change. Mr Gonzales’s position grew even more precarious at the weekend when it emerged that he had, despite earlier denials, been involved in a controversial decision to sack eight federal prosecutors. Some 280 pages of documents released by the administration suggest Mr Gonzales had attended a meeting to discuss sacking the prosecutors, 10 days before they were dismissed. The attorney general had said he saw no memos and attended no meetings on the matter. Although Mr Bush used his weekly radio address on Saturday to restate his confidence in Mr Gonzales, that disclosure makes such loyalty extremely costly. “He has got a problem. You cannot have the nation’s chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility,” Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska, told ABC television.
The sackings have been condemned as an attempt to politicise the judiciary.
Additionally, I heard 2-latin individuals working with a host of non-latin speaking Americans begin excluding the Americans out of the conversation by speaking in their native tongue, then turn and ask the Americans questions in English, and again excluded the Americans by speaking spanish. “The Americans on, USA soil, just stood there looking stupid.” The latin individual’s behavior was rude, insensitive, smirking, and exploits the kindness of all Americans with roots going
back hundreds of years here in the U.S.A..
As always as soon a latin numbers rise they will chase you off your job. And since she is so great at interpreting American law why don’t she go to Mexico and help mexicans with the extremely bad drug problem and put a stop to illegal immigration.
Not in support of Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court !!!!
Here’s why and Related Topics:
Calls Grow for Bush’s then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Quit . Now this same person, Alberto Gonzales, tells America that choosing Sotomayor is in America’s best interest. And Sotomayor stated her interpretation of American laws and Judicial system is better simply because she is a LATINA. This is a racist statement.
Papers suggest Gonzales lied over sacking of judges – Republicans fear then president Bush would lose the ability to lead.
The widening revolt makes the then attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a growing liability for Mr Bush, who is struggling to hold the line on his policies from Iraq to climate change. Mr Gonzales’s position grew even more precarious by weeks’ end
when it emerged that he had, despite earlier denials, been involved in a controversial decision to sack eight federal prosecutors. Some 280 pages of documents released by the administration suggest Mr Gonzales had attended a meeting to discuss sacking the prosecutors 10 days before they were dismissed. The attorney general had said he saw no memos and attended no meetings on the matter. Bush used his weekly radio address on Saturday to restate his confidence in Mr Gonzales, that disclosure makes such loyalty extremely costly. You cannot have the nation’s chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility,” Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska, told ABC television.
The sackings have been condemned as an attempt to politicize the judiciary.
Additionally, I heard 2-latin individuals working with a host of non-latin speaking Americans begin excluding the Americans out of the conversation by speaking in their native tongue, then turn and ask the Americans questions in English, and again excluded the Americans by speaking spanish. “The Americans on, USA soil, just stood there looking stupid.” The latin individuals’ behavior was rude, insensitive, smirking, and exploits the kindness of all Americans with roots going back hundreds of years here
in the U.S.A.
As always, as soon a latin numbers rise and they have access to more power, they will chase you off your job. And since Sotomayor is so great at interpreting American law why don’t she go to Mexico and help mexicans with that extremely horrendous drug problem in mexico and put a stop to illegal immigration into the U.S.A. (“you know
being an American and all ). Do You Think They Would Select Her in Mexico as Their Top Judge? I know Mexican’s in Mexico would not pick you American.
Always thought that your blog is one of the best in my bookmarks, and once again saw this