Will Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court be jeopardized by the court’s decision Monday overturning her ruling in the case of the New Haven, Conn., firefighters? Should it be?
The Wall Street Journal editorialized: “Ms. Sotomayor’s supporters have been at pains to argue that she has ended up on both sides of racial discrimination complaints while on the 2nd Circuit. But those examining her record can reasonably ask if the disregard she exhibited for a Title VII claim by white firefighters falls into the category of neutrality or its own kind of bias.”
The Dallas Morning News editorialized: “Yes, her panel was criticized for a one-paragraph dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims — claims the Supreme Court later recognized as significant constitutional questions. Yet one case does not a judicial philosophy make. Sotomayor has participated in hundreds of rulings from a number of benches — so many that Senate Republicans complained that they could not read them all in time to question her. They should remember that before focusing too narrowly on any single case.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- Phantom on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
63 Comments
Oh boy, here comes the right wing anti-statists (just for you, Hank) to tell us what a (insert derogatory name) Sotomayer is.
Sonia Sotomayer was raised in the south Bronx section of New York City. But her father was Puerto Rican which implies a polygot of cultural background. European, Spanish, African, American Indian, etc. So Sonia Sotomayer (So So So) would bring a lot of cultures to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sotomayor is supposed to bring a deep undestanding of the constitution to the Supreme Court and act on that, not on whether or not she represents a lot of cultures. Her family history is not supposed to play a part in her decision making.
Well thought out piece by George Will.
June 30, 2009
On Race, The Slog Goes On
By George Will
WASHINGTON — Although New Haven’s firefighters deservedly won in the Supreme Court, it is deeply depressing that they won narrowly — 5-4. The egregious behavior by that city’s government, in a context of racial rabble-rousing, did not seem legally suspect to even one of the court’s four liberals, whose harmony seemed to reflect result-oriented rather than law-driven reasoning.
The undisputed facts are that in 2003 the city gave promotion exams to 118 firemen, 27 of them black. The tests were prepared by a firm specializing in employment exams and were validated, as federal law requires, by independent experts. When none of the African-Americans did well enough to qualify for the available promotions, a black minister allied with the seven-term mayor warned of a dire “political ramification” if the city promoted from the list of persons (including one Hispanic) that the exams identified as qualified. The city decided that no one would be promoted, calling this a race-neutral outcome because no group was disadvantaged more than any other.
The city’s idea of equal treatment — denying promotions equally to those deemed and those not deemed qualified — was particularly galling to Frank Ricci, who had prepared for the exams by quitting his second job, buying the more than $1,000 worth of books the city recommended, paying to have them read onto audiotapes — he is dyslexic — and taking practice tests and interviews. His efforts earned him the sixth-highest score.
He and others denied promotions for which their exam scores made them eligible sued, charging violations of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws and of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The city argued that if it had made promotions based on the test results, it would have been vulnerable under the 1964 act to being sued for adopting a practice that had a “disparate impact” on minorities. On Monday, the court’s conservatives (Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority, joined by John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) held:
The rights of Ricci et al. under the 1964 act were violated. The city’s fear of a disparate impact litigation was not unfounded, but that did not justify the race-based response to the exam results because New Haven did not have “a strong basis in evidence” to believe it would be held liable. There is such evidence only if the exams “were not job related and consistent with business necessity, or if there existed an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative” that would have served the city’s needs but that it refused to adopt.
“All the evidence demonstrates that the city rejected the test results because the higher scoring candidates were white.” The city’s criticisms of the exam “are blatantly contradicted by the record.” And “the city turned a blind eye to evidence supporting the exams’ validity” (emphases added).
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined in dissent by John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer, rejected the majority’s conclusions root and branch. She cited a federal report from the early 1970s about discrimination in hiring firefighters, disputed even the “business necessity” of the exams’ 60/40 written/oral ratio and defended the integrity of New Haven’s decision-making — rejecting Alito’s concurrence, which dwelt on the rancid racial politics of the Rev. Boise Kimber. Alito concluded that “no reasonable jury” could find that the city possessed a “substantial basis in evidence to find the tests inadequate.”
Scalia, concurring separately, said Monday’s ruling “merely postpones the evil day” on which the court must decide “whether, or to what extent,” existing disparate-impact law conflicts with the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the law. Conceding that “the question is not an easy one,” Scalia said: The federal government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, so surely “it is also prohibited from enacting laws mandating that third parties” — e.g., a city government — “discriminate on the basis of race.” Scalia added:
“Would a private employer not be guilty of unlawful discrimination if he refrained from establishing a racial hiring quota but intentionally designed his hiring practices to achieve the same end? Surely he would. Intentional discrimination is still occurring, just one step up the chain.”
The nation shall slog on, litigating through a fog of euphemisms and blurry categories (e.g., “race-conscious” actions that somehow are not racial discrimination because they “remedy” discrimination that no one has intended). This is the predictable price of failing to simply insist that government cannot take cognizance of race.
Looks like California is joined by five other states that are in budget turmoil.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_re_us/us_state_budgets_9
Sotomayer along with two other judges on the 3 judge panel went by the law in their ruling.
SCOTUS decided the Constitutionality of the law used in the case, not that it will matter to some.
Seeing that Sotomayor was part of a unanimous decision who based their decision of Supreme Court precedent I don’t see how any reasonable person could criticize her for her decision.
But I don’t expect neo-cons to be reasonable.
From the DMN editorial:
“Yes, her panel was criticized for a one-paragraph dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims – claims the Supreme Court later recognized as significant constitutional questions. Yet one case does not a judicial philosophy make.”
“Sotomayor has participated in hundreds of rulings from a number of benches – so many that Senate Republicans complained that they could not read them all in time to question her. They should remember that before focusing too narrowly on any single case.”
————————————————-
Fair enough. However it’s pretty clear on where she will be on issues of race. With her on the high court, the firefighter lose.
The ‘Soda Mare’ is two-faced. She doesn’t want racial discrimination for job promotion testing, but that’s exactly what she ruled to do – to discriminate by race.
There was even a Hispanic representation on the firefighters that lost the first round.
The five supreme court justices that ruled in favor of the firefighters are correct. You do not make rulings that discriminate.
Perhaps dub Libs are hearkening back to days of pandering for favor and fear of the bogeyman? Who knows – they were just wrong – racial discrimination is just wrong.
The ‘Party of Tolerance’ supports an obvious bigot to rule on the SC.
Somehow, I’m not surprised.
Do the anti-Sotomayor folks realize they are calling the other two justices that ruled with her racists as well? And I suppose they believe the 4 on the Supreme Court that agreed with her decision must also be racist. Of course they have no evidence for any of this but they need a reason to oppose Sotomayor other than why they really oppose her, Obama nominated her.
Sotomayor and the firefighters…
====================================
Rightly overturned.
Of course they have no evidence for any of this but they need a reason to oppose Sotomayor other than why they really oppose her, Obama nominated her.
==================================================
Well she is a bigot, I think that is justification to oppose her.
Anti, because she based her decision on a Supreme Court decision that makes her a bigot? If she didn’t rule that way she’d be accused of being a judicial activist.
Can’t win with you guys.
Let’s face it; the cons here would demand she be disqualified for her hairdo. Those lemmings are grasping for any imaginary straw to keep from falling off the Bush cliff!
Maggotpunk
Posted July 1, 2009 at 8:41 am | Permalink
Anti, because she based her decision on a Supreme Court decision that makes her a bigot?
==============================
Her comments make her a bigot.
“The Race”
Neo-cons have already criticized her for being Hispanic. I guess having brown skin makes her unqualified.
I guess having brown skin makes her unqualified.
=================================================
Brown skin?
Have you actually seen her?
I’ve seen blondes with ‘browner’ skin than Sonchomayo.
Hey Anti, if you haven’t noticed there is a picture of her if you scroll up.
Hey Anti, if you haven’t noticed there is a picture of her if you scroll up.
============================
Yeah, she doesn’t look ‘brown’ to me.
She looks pale.
Who is Sonchomayo?
Maggotpunk
Posted July 1, 2009 at 8:45 am | Permalink
Hey Anti, if you haven’t noticed there is a picture of her if you scroll up.
—————————————————-
Yep.
She’s as white looking as Michael Jackson.
Maggotpunk must be talking about the Liberals who fled from the Democratic party as Neo-cons. That is where their roots came from after all.
Hey Anti, if you haven’t noticed there is a picture of her if you scroll up.
============================================
I’ve seen a ginger Irishman with a motel tan that is ‘browner’ than Sotomayor!
Regular, who are these liberals who criticized her for being Hispanic?
Judging by the comments of the Cons they can’t criticize her legal decision so they just have to make fun of the way she looks. Typical. No substance from the cons, I don’t expect to hear anything intelligent from them today (which isn’t different than any other day).
#
Maggotpunk
Posted July 1, 2009 at 8:49 am | Permalink
Regular, who are these liberals who criticized her for being Hispanic?
————————
Another dubious question MP?
Why did the ‘Soda Mare’ discriminate against a Hispanic firefighter in her ruling? Aren’t Hispanics a recognized minority? Or wasn’t her fellow Hispanic’s skin not dark enough?
It shows the futility of discrimination by skin melanin. It’s just stupid and has no place in society. The ‘Soda Mare’ was wrong.
Maggotpunk,
It was you who brought skin color into the discussion, not ‘cons’.
She’s not very unbiased. She does seem to look at white men as privileged and unintelligent. Which is dangerous thinking. White people are just like everyone else, we have the smart white people, and the stupid white people. We have privileged white people, and white trash, and the hard working middle class white people in between. Do two instances constitute a pattern? No, but I would say it’s enough to keep a close eye on her, and to dig in her past. Does Stereotyping races, constitute as racism? I don’t know. I do know, that everybody stereotypes to an extent, and that stereotypes are there, because there is a small grain of truth to them. But it is a pattern of thought that should be consciously minimized by public officials. The thing is, she made these statements or decisions, based on her emotions and beliefs, not on the facts of the situations at hand. I think all this means, is that people are too quick too deem any circumstance based on racism. Lets quit playing the race cards people. As you can see, from the Firefighter incident, they were quick to support the African Americans, and dismiss the opinions of the white firefighters. This type of thing has been going on for years. But people have this belief, that only white people can be bigoted, stereotypical, or racist, and white people are just expected to take it. That’s not equal opportunity, or equal treatment.
I think she’s slightly racists against white people. Although, I’m sure she’s trying to wrangle it in. In fact, it seems like a lot of Latinos, and Mexicans, hate white people. It also seems like a lot of white people hate Mexicans. With the whole immigration thing, it’s like we’ve been at each others throats for awhile. Maybe Sotamayor supports all the illegals, flooding into our country, and spites the white man, for not liking it.
This is the predictable price of failing to simply insist that government cannot take cognizance of race. – George Will
————-
Race is used as just another distinction to divide people into self interest groups so that someone can gain a power position by repping them.
We will never have the color blind society that MLK envisioned as long as the law allows any discrimination based on race, OR favoritism based on race.
The interesting thing in this case is that even the minority rejected the legal reasoning – what there was of it in a short per curiam opinion, of Sotomayer’s panel.
This was a 5-4 decision, folks; it’s not a clear or easy case, or a “slam dunk.” If it was, it wouldn’t have gone to the Supreme Court. And the SCOTUS, in making it’s decision, imported a legal standard from 14th amendment Equal Protection litigation, a blending lower courts, bound to follow precedent, may hesitate to do.
On the other hand, the racial agitation from the black/hispanic firefighters to throw out a test that was as neutral as could be made in favor of “racially balanced” results was about as blantant as can be. It was clear that throwing out the results was not at all fair to the firefighters who did well on the examinations, and elevated racial balance over demonstrated aptitude.
Read the case for yourself.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf
While it’s a bit of a mark against her, it’s hardly disqualifying. The justice she’s replacing also came out on the wrong side. Like I said before: most of the objections from Republicans are for political posturing, not because they believe they can stop her nomination. And you’re replacing a reliable liberal with a reliable liberal; the “balance” on the court doesn’t change (though those “liberal/conservative” labels mean less and less on the court; look at some of the mix of justices, the strange bedfellows, in recent cases).
Republicans ought to save their political effort for a fight that matters. This one doesn’t.
On a related note, there is this from the NY Times:
Justices Scalia and Thomas are apt to follow what they understand to be the original meaning of the Constitution, even when the consequences might not align with their policy preferences.
Well, Yea. That is what judges are supposed to do: read the law, rather than make the law. That distinction is not always clear in practice, and at times judges do indeed make law; they should do so narrowly, and only when required to do so.
And from the Times, that’s an earth-shattering admission.
Read the rest of the article. While I don’t agree with much of it (it’s the usual MSM lack of understanding of legal issues; SCOTUS decisions are rarely about what they appear to be about!), there is some interesting stuff: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/01scotus.html?_r=1
It’s a good article GMC – I noted that Scalia and Thomas sided with the so-called Liberal side of the court when the two Justices utilized the original meaning of the Constitution.
Of course, the MSM never reports on this kind of Supreme Court interpretations. :)
“I think she’s slightly racists against white people. Although, I’m sure she’s trying to wrangle it in. In fact, it seems like a lot of Latinos, and Mexicans, hate white people.” [Barnie]
Hmmmm… That would be strange, Barnie, since Latino’s and Mexicans, and Sotomayor… ARE in fact, white people(Caucasian).
Want to try again on your own racial biases??
The NYT isnt MSM?? Quick, call El Rushbo Hannity O’Reilly… They need to know this…
Chas,
STFU.
I agree with GMC… Ms. Sotomayor’s ruling on this matter does not for a basis for disqualifying her from the SCOTUS… Republicans should focus on other matters…
Chas, can you tell me how they are white people. In all the forms people have fill out. There is Caucasian, non-Hispanic, and Hispanic. That tells me otherwise, when government forms, differentiate between Caucasian, and Hispanic.
I think your confused, Spanish people, from Spain, are Caucasian.
Sotomayor the racist is a perfect choice.
Perfect for Obama.
The Dems have the majority – Slam Dunk.
-Court Cases should be decided by skin color and sex.
-Supreme Court judges should be selected by skin color and sex.
-And President’s should be selected by skin color and sex.
Chas
Posted July 1, 2009 at 9:59 am | Permalink
“I think she’s slightly racists against white people. Although, I’m sure she’s trying to wrangle it in. In fact, it seems like a lot of Latinos, and Mexicans, hate white people.” [Barnie]
Hmmmm… That would be strange, Barnie, since Latino’s and Mexicans, and Sotomayor… ARE in fact, white people(Caucasian).
Want to try again on your own racial biases??
———————————–
Chas, please clarify your view on the difference between Skin Color and Race.
Thanking you in advance. I look forward to your eloquent answer, as usual.
The SCOTUS decision saw the CON majority making law instead of interpreting the Constitution.
The appellate court, with Sotomayor part of a unanimous decision, specifically did not make law, but relied on established SCOTUS precedent.
Sam (the Sham) Brownback and Patsy Roberts’ objecting to “activist” judges is audacious hypocrisy in this case. And, since Justice Souter voted to uphold the appellate court’s decision, the consequences of Sotomayor replacing is moot.
Perhaps “HLP” can shift this thread to something more relevant, like how big Sonia’s ass is.
#
Chas
Posted July 1, 2009 at 10:01 am | Permalink
The NYT isnt MSM?? Quick, call El Rushbo Hannity O’Reilly… They need to know this…
————————
You didn’t hear about the case that Scalia and Thomas ruled on and sided with the Liberal Justices because it was buried in a NYT article, including this one.
The MSM hates to report cooperation.
Jimbo,
“… please clarify your view on the difference between Skin Color and Race.”
Given that race has no biological basis, it is strictly a social construct invented for the purpose of discrimination and/or economic exploitation. Skin color has no more relevance to anything but fashion than the color of one’s car or shirt does.
In an introduction to a more detailed population profile (see references below), the Census Bureau highlighted the following facts about U.S population dynamics:
75.1% of respondents said they were White or Caucasian and no other race;
21.36% (60 million Americans) are of German descent; German Americans
12.3% are of Black or African American descent;
Hispanics — who may belong to any race — accounted for 12.5% of the U.S. population, up from 9% in 1990;
3.6% of respondents are Asian;
2.4% of respondents are multiracial (2 or more races). The 2000 Census was the first time survey options for multiracial Americans were provided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_Census
Personally, I am not sure exactly why the Census report lists “German Americans” except as a line of national descent/origin. Since German Americans could be of any race… It would be interesting to see a further breakdown on that one…
Please note: Hispanics can be of any “RACE”
Chas
Posted July 1, 2009 at 9:59 am | Permalink
“I think she’s slightly racists against white people. Although, I’m sure she’s trying to wrangle it in. In fact, it seems like a lot of Latinos, and Mexicans, hate white people.” [Barnie]
Hmmmm… That would be strange, Barnie, since Latino’s and Mexicans, and Sotomayor… ARE in fact, white people(Caucasian).
Want to try again on your own racial biases??
———————————–
Chas, please clarify your view on the difference between Skin Color and Race.
Thanking you in advance. I look forward to your eloquent answer, as usual.
Is that your FINAL answer at 11:58 Chas?
I knew you’d resort to Wiki.
Jed
Posted July 1, 2009 at 11:54 am | Permalink
Jimbo,
“… please clarify your view on the difference between Skin Color and Race.”
Given that race has no biological basis, it is strictly a social construct invented for the purpose of discrimination and/or economic exploitation. Skin color has no more relevance to anything but fashion than the color of one’s car or shirt does.
=========================
Agree with you Jed, and with Regular on this point.
Chas seems to think there is some meaningful definition of Race though. (See his 9:59 and 11:58 posts)
If I’m white and from South African decent, which category am I in?
Lookin forward to seeing Chas define Race and Multi-Racial, since he throws those terms around as if everyone knows.
Seeing that Sotomayor was part of a unanimous decision who based their decision of Supreme Court precedent I don’t see how any reasonable person could criticize her for her decision.
But I don’t expect neo-cons to be reasonable.
The state makes an exam has it certified by a third party. They gives the exam, but because no blacks passed the test, you think it is okay to not promote the people that did pass. Then for the courts to only come to a 5-4 decision, and then say that race had nothing to do with it. Just how stupid are you?
Justice is blind, but only when it works in your favor, is that it?
Translation please…..
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
JimJohnson
Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
If I’m white and from South African decent, which category am I in?
============================================
Only a race baiter and an idiot would ask such a question…
South Africa is a NATION So you would be of South African descent… such as a German would be
White would be your identified race.
If you are also an American, then you are a citizen of the USA… and you could classify yourself as a South African American… if you’re that hung up on your national origin…
And BTW folks – it should be noted that this issue was decided NOT on constitutional grounds, but on statutory grounds – specifically, Title VII. In effect, the majority said that fear of lawsuit, unless there is a realistic basis in law to support the plaintiff’s claims, is not justification to discriminate under Title VII.
The SCOTUS
And there is little dispute that New Haven did in fact discriminate. As the opinion notes, there is no basis in the record to support New Haven’s claim that the testing procedure was invalid.
And BTW folks – it should be noted that this issue was decided NOT on constitutional grounds, but on statutory grounds – specifically, Title VII. In effect, the majority said that fear of lawsuit, unless there is a realistic basis in law to support the plaintiff’s claims, is not justification to discriminate under Title VII.
The SCOTUS
And there is little dispute that New Haven did in fact discriminate. As the opinion notes, there is no basis in the record to support New Haven’s claim that the testing procedure was invalid.
#
JimJohnson
Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
I’m white and from South African decent, which category am I in?
================================================
Stupid.
Thanks GMC… I was wondering how it would have been a constitutional ruling… That helps — knowing it is a Title VII ruling…
Let’s finish this thought, while I have time over lunch –
It should be noted that this issue was decided NOT on constitutional grounds, but on statutory grounds – specifically, Title VII. In effect, the majority said that fear of lawsuit, unless there is a realistic basis in law to support the plaintiff’s claims, is not justification to discriminate under Title VII.
From the decision:
“This action presents two provisions of Title VII to be interpreted and reconciled, with few, if any, precedents in the courts of appeals discussing the issue. Depending on the resolution of the statutory claim, a fundamental constitutional question could also arise. We found it prudent and appropriate to grant certiorari. 555 U. S. ___ (2009). We now reverse.”
The majority’s final paragraph:
“Petitioners are entitled to summary judgment on their Title VII claim, and we therefore need not decide the underlying constitutional question. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The SCOTUS specifically did NOT decide this on constitutional grounds. Scalia’s concurrence notes that the consititutional issue – “affirmative action” programs running up against the clear language of the 14th amendment – was put off for another day.
From Scalia:
“I join the Court’s opinion in full, but write separately to observe that its resolution of this dispute merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confrontthe question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection? The question is not an easy one. See generally Primus, Equal Protection and Disparate Impact:Round Three, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 493 (2003).
“The difficulty is this: Whether or not Title VII’s disparate-treatment provisions forbid “remedial” race-based actions when a disparate-impact violation would not otherwise result—the question resolved by the Court today—it is clear that Title VII not only permits but affirmatively requires such actions when a disparate-impact violation would otherwise result. See ante, at 20–21. But if the Federal Government is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 500 (1954), then surely it is also prohibited from enacting laws mandating that third parties—e.g., employers, whether private, State, or municipal—discriminate on the basis of race. See Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 78–82 (1917).As the facts of these cases illustrate, Title VII’s disparate-impact provisions place a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes oftheir policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes. That type of racial decisionmaking is, as the Court explains, discriminatory. See ante, at 19; Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 279 (1979).”
And there is little dispute that New Haven did in fact discriminate. As the opinion notes, there is no basis in the record to support New Haven’s claim that the testing procedure was invalid.
Not an easy call, but the right one.
MH – while much of the criticism of “judicial activism” is politically motivated, in fact there is such a thing, largely by courts mandating remedies and “creating” rights not envisioned by legislatures or the constitution. And yes, at times, conservative majorities do it too. But it’s not nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be, nor is the Court’s “liberal/conservative” divide nearly as predictable or neat as often assumed. This case, however, is most certainly NOT one of “judicial activism.” It involved application of a statute – Title VII – to a particular set of facts. That is exactly what courts do on a regular basis.
If you assert otherwise, tell me in what way this court was particularly “activist?” Or is this just today’s parrotted talking point?
Chas
Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:39 pm | Permalink
JimJohnson
Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
If I’m white and from South African decent, which category am I in?
============================================
Only a race baiter and an idiot would ask such a question…
South Africa is a NATION So you would be of South African descent… such as a German would be
White would be your identified race.
I thought White was a color?
If you are also an American, then you are a citizen of the USA… and you could classify yourself as a South African American… if you’re that hung up on your national origin…
Why wouldn’t I be an African American?
JMWalker
Posted June 30, 2009 at 7:04 am | Permalink
So, jim johnson, how about writing to your elected representatives and demanding they do something about it. You know, like Brownback and Tiahrt, those stalwarts of conservative politics. Or does your interest in politics stop at actually doing something positive about it? I suspect the latter, since I can’t recall reading anything of a positive nature from you at all. You are, however, a master of cut and paste, as long as its intent is negative in nature. Seems to be all you neocons are capable of anymore.
—————————————-
JMWalker
Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:44 pm | Permalink
#
JimJohnson
Posted July 1, 2009 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
I’m white and from South African decent, which category am I in?
================================================
Stupid.
——————————————-
JM, is this one of your POSITIVE posts?
Still waiting for that example showing one of your POSITIVE UPLIFTING posts.
I’m white and from South African decent, which category am I in?
Afrikkaner.
Seems I missed a pretty good thread, the usual food fights notwithstanding. Oh well.