Miss Affirmative Action, 2009
Having lost the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, Republicans are looking to redefine themselves for a nation that still leans conservative but is less Republican that it has been in decades.
The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court presents just such an opportunity. For, even if the party loses the battle and Sotomayor sits on the court, it can win the war, as Ronald Reagan won the Panama Canal debate, even as Senate Republicans committed collective suicide by voting to give away the canal.
What are the grounds for rejecting Sonia Sotomayor?
No one has brought forth the slightest evidence she has the intellectual candlepower to sit on the Roberts court. By her own admission, Sotomayor is an "affirmative action baby."
Though the Obama media have been ballyhooing her brilliance—No. 1 in high school, No. 1 at Princeton, editor of Yale Law Review—her academic career appears to have been a fraud from beginning to end, a testament to Ivy League corruption.
Two weeks ago, the New York Times reported that, to get up to speed on her English skills at Princeton, Sotomayor was advised to read children's classics and study basic grammar books during her summers. How do you graduate first in your class at Princeton if your summer reading consists of "Chicken Little" and "The Troll Under the Bridge"?
In video clips dating back 25 years, and now provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor, according to the Times, even calls herself an "affirmative action product."
"The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an 'affirmative action baby,' whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstances."
"If we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions," says Sotomayor, "it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted. ... My test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates."
Thus, Sotomayor got into Princeton, got her No. 1 ranking, was whisked into Yale Law School and made editor of the Yale Law Review—all because she was a Hispanic woman. And those two Ivy League institutions cheated more deserving students of what they had worked a lifetime to achieve, for reasons of race, gender or ethnicity.
This is bigotry pure and simple. To salve their consciences for past societal sins, the Ivy League is deep into discrimination again, this time with white males as victims rather than as beneficiaries.
One prefers the old bigotry. At least it was honest, and not, as Abraham Lincoln observed, adulterated "with the base alloy of hypocrisy."
As the Times reports, on the tapes, Sotomayor rejects "the proposition that minorities must become advocates of 'selection by merit alone.' She said diversity improved the legal system."
"'Since I have difficultly defining merit and what merit alone means, and ... whether it's judicial or otherwise, I accept that different experiences, in and of itself, bring merit to the system,' she said, adding, 'I think it brings to the system more of a sense of fairness when these litigants see people like myself on the bench."
What does the latest Times revelation tell us?
That were it not for Ivy League dishonesty, Sotomayor would not have gotten into Princeton, would never have been ranked first in her class, would not have gotten into Yale Law, nor been named editor of Yale Law Review, and thus would not be a U.S. appellate court judge today or a nominee to the Supreme Court.
Indeed, the White House itself leaked that the final four court candidates were all women and Sotomayor was picked because she was a Latina. One wonders how many superior students and judges have been passed over to advance Sonia Sotomayor's career?
From college days to court days, that career reflects, in word and deed, a determination to use any power she achieves to create a society where the demands of diversity triumph over the ideal of equal justice under law. For Sotomayor, the advancement of people of color over white males is justice.
Republican senators should use this Sotomayor nomination to put affirmative action in the dock for what it is—race-based bigotry against white males so that persons of color can receive the rewards of society that they could not win in free and fair competition.
Lay out the Sotomayor record—SAT scores, LSAT scores, bar exam score, law review articles and her opinions—so that we can see up close what those who eviscerated Robert Bork regard as academic and judicial excellence.
No need for name-calling.
Just lay out the lady's opinions and record, so that, if she is elevated, Americans can say: Barack Obama voted against Chief Justice Roberts because Roberts could not measure up to Sonia Sotomayor, his ideal of what a justice ought to be.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
It's Republicans who gave us Sotomayor in the first place. George Bush the 1st put her on the federal bench in 1992. Where were the Republican critics of Miss Affirmative action 1992?
Hi Pat,
What do you make of Bill Donohue's comment that he will be "quietly rooting for Sotomayor?"
He figures she is the best conservatives can hope for when stacked up against the other possible candidates.
"...even if the party loses the battle and Sotomayor sits on the court, it can win the war, as Ronald Reagan won the Panama Canal debate even as Senate Republicans committed collective suicide by voting to give away the canal."
Let me see if I understand this: Ronald Reagan won the "debate" but the U.S. lost the Panama Canal. Therefore, Republicans--who voted to give up the canal--could later declare victory. And now, in 2009, if Sosominor (sic) is seated on SCOTUS, Republicans (who thus far are characteristically flapping their arms in lieu of significant debate prior to--no doubt--rubber-stamping the nominee) will "win the war" ultimately, because they will be able to say "I told you so."
There is simply no victory so sweet as victory re-defined. Which, in this case, is no victory. That's the only kind the GOP seems interested in anymore. Hey: it works for PJB anyway.
If Pat Buchanan and the late Sam Francis had been able to discuss this over dinner, I am sure Dr. Francis would tell Pat that the Republicans would never tell the truth on affirmative action and quotas because the GOP is the "stupid party". Expect Sonia Sotomayor to be coddled by the likes of Lindsey Graham, who delights in slandering conservatives who wish to conserve their nation against Third World immigration as "bigots" and prefers the company of the Mexican chauvanists of La Raza.
On another tangent somewhat relevant to Sonia Sotomayor, can anyone explain why Puerto Rico, from where Miss Sotomayor's people are from, is not set free as an independent country instead of being a parasite of the United States? For that matter, why not Guam, Samoa and the US Virgin Islands? It seems to me that the Puerto Ricans to respect the most are that small minority that demands independence rather than Yankee welfare dollars. Any patriotic Puerto Rican should be steadfast in their wish to run their own nation.
@ 2 Derek
Any patriotic Puerto Rican should be steadfast in their wish to run their own nation.
Since we stole it from the Spanish over 100 years ago, I suggest we sell it back to Spain for $1, which will make the Island part of the European Union. I believe the US Virgin Islands were bought fair and square from the Danish.
Mr. Gervaise, if NATO can fight a war in Afghanistan, it certainly is plausible that Puerto Rico would be a good fit for the European Union. So I agree with your solution to the Puerto Rico dilemma.
You are correct regarding the Virgin Islands. But I imagine that the Woodrow Wilson war machine pressured Denmark to sell the Virgins. Of course, the Virgin Islands were vital to our interests in Europe at that time so we had to bully Denmark in order to make the world safe for democracy.
The Supreme Court now is totally corrupted, so we're better off getting dummies in robes so we at least can laugh at them. If Sotomayor is rejected, she'll just be replaced by someone with the same views, but smarter.
Let's remember: the REPUBLICANS started this affirmative action at the high level business by promoting Powell to head of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State and Condi to Secretary of State. And in 7 presidential terms they never did anything about affirmative action except to forward it.
Dr. Wilson,
Ever heard of Richard Nixon's Philadelphia Plan? Look it up on Wikipedia if not. The GOP did indeed invent affirmative action, not just at the highest levels but at the lowest, and they embrace it whenever they can score political points with it. I wonder why Chronicles must continue to publish Buchanan articles when he never shows the slightest sign of severing his remaining ties to the ORIGINAL left-wing American political party??
Brock @7: Quite right, Richard Nixon started it and the Republicans have pushed it relentlessly, even Ronald Reagan. It's quite sad really, but if you want to see something truly amazing (and even sadder in my humble opinion)visit your nearest miltary base and watch all the women strutting around in their camo outfits -- it's ghastly! The Federal Guvernment, all major corporations, and surely at the top of the pile, the education establishment are nothing more than giant social engineering projects.
There is no longer anything natural about our society, it's all a construct of some truly twisted minds.
Ahaha...."Republicans are looking to redefine themselves for a nation that still leans conservative but is less Republican that it has been in decades."
This is nothing new at all. America's first socialist party, the republicans, have always used this same kind of fraud in order to sell themselves to the people they want to bar from influence.
Now we read, "To salve their consciences for past societal sins, the Ivy League is deep into discrimination again, this time with white males as victims rather than as beneficiaries."
Is this really to salve any mythical consciences supposedly posessed by the frauds who hold sway in the Ivy League institutions? It's more likely business as usual in the breeding ground for mercantilist strategies, which is what the Ivy League always has been and always will be.
This is brilliant: "That were it not for Ivy League dishonesty, Sotomayor would not have gotten into Princeton, would never have been ranked first in her class, would not have gotten into Yale Law, nor been named editor of Yale Law Review, and thus would not be a U.S. appellate court judge today or a nominee to the Supreme Court."
Let's bear in mind here that the Ivy League is as solidly republican in nature as it is "liberal". The same statement quoted above could have been used to illuminate GW Bush's path to the White House. W held two Ivy League Degrees and was clearly so imbecilic that he would never have been able to graduate from any of our contemporary public middle schools.
The only difference between W's certification by the Ivy League and those of Ms. Sotomayor and her champion, BH Obama, is that W's degrees were bought with cash and influence while Sotomayor's and Obama's were doled out gratis by the same corrupt administrators in those schools.
The Ivy League schools have managed to inflict upon us most of the morally retarded leadership who have done and continue to do terrible damage as politicians, judges, diplomats and the fraudulent "business leaders" on Wall Street.
Truly, this country would have benefited greatly had New England seceded during the war of 1812.
Mr. Buchanan has given us yet another great article illustrating the destructive nature of his precious republican party and that party's traditional home in the soured soil of New England.