Okay, so here's what bothers me about all the white male conservative whining over Judge Sotomayor: at the end of their logic is this - the only people who can render objective (not objectionable, which would be hilarious, right?) are white men. This means that white men's reality is reality and correct me if I'm wrong but that's what's gotten this country into trouble even as recently as 2008 with 2 unnecessary wars and economic collapse: white male "reality."
Tim Wise has an elucidating, if a bit gruff, piece here.
That said, I am a bit trouble about the fact that her ruling against minorities in discrimination cases 80% of the time is talked about like it's a good thing. Sure, it proves that the whiners are lying. That said, don't the facts of life - the minorities experience a hefty amount of discrimination and much, much more than whites face "reverse" discrimination - how is it a good thing that she ruled against the minority 80% of the time. Is that the national average or something? That only 20% of the minority-discrimination cases brought before the circuit court or legit?
Now, apparently, she only ruled in one case that actually questioned discrimination based on race, and not a technicality of a lower court decision or something like that. In that one case, she agreed with the plaintiff, a kindergartner alleging racism in the decision to prevent his transferring. - You know? There may be quite a few kids in my area who can make such claims. - So she doesn't appear to me, at least, to be a threat to civil rights.
But I'm still not happy that that statistic, 80%, is being held up with some kind of virtue. What?
But Don't Jack My Genuis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.