Let’s Have That Discussion About Race, Shall We?

Pajamas Media ^ | May 31 | Jennifer Rubin

[AJKauf]

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has vaulted the president, the Senate, and the entire country into a discussion about race and the meaning of equal protection under the law. The president could have gone another route — choosing, for example, a distinguished justice like Diane Wood who did not have controversial decisions, speeches, and law review articles suggesting that there are different strains of jurisprudence depending on the ethnicity of the judge. But he did not. And now Eric Holder will have his wish — everyone is talking about race.

The much-discussed New Haven firefighter case encapsulates many of the arguments which rage today about “diversity,” race, and equal protection. And it suggests Sotomayor is not the sort of judge to enforce the colorblind conception of the Constitution which was the foundation of the civil rights movement and which is set out in the plain language of the 14th Amendment...

[ex91B10]

By all means, let's.

[Kid Shelleen]

Frank Ricci, a dyslexic white firefighter, brought suit after the city of New Haven threw out the test scores on a promotion exam which none of the African American firefighters passed

A true scholar would have empathy for the person that worked hard and prepared for the test instead of a bunch of losers who were too stupid or too lazy pass the test.

[I see my hands]

"Let’s Have That Discussion About Race, Shall We?"

Going to have to know what whites can/can’t say and what facts must be hidden and what lies must be foundational first. Is everyone allowed to use the same language?

[Cheetahcat]

Kind of hard to have a frank discussion about race with racists who have spent a lifetime using it as a crutch.

[Talisker]

It all started when the 1st Amendment was twisted back on itself and used to place a limit on “offensive” speech. No one reflected on the fact that the only kind of free speech that would ever possibly need legal protection is, precisely, speech that other people might find offensive. After all, who’s going to try to silence unoffensive speech?

But that twisted way of thinking stuck, because it enabled all sorts of liberal mischief, and created professional fields of exploitation that have finally delivered up Sotomayor - who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a courtroom.

Instead, the country has to now figure out how much twisting and destruction of rights, and denial of the purpose behind the rights, should be allowed in the government’s issuing of any particular privilege (which is made to seem like a right).

Sotomayor is the chicken finally coming home to roost. Ultimately, her defense will simply be that you can modify her words, but that she meant what she said, because that’s how people understand freedom now. And in that, she’s right - that’s how people understand freedom, now.

If this keeps up, eventually, people will also understand the true meaning of the sign over the Auschwitz gate, which said: “Work Makes You Free.”

Hey, words don’t mean anything concrete. Each application of any particular word, like “freedom,” has to be nuanced for proper interpretation. That’s why people like Sotomayor are proud of their special ability to do just that, based on race, sex, or whatever other vital interpretive principle is required.

But required by whom, and for what?

[13Sisters76]

...not to mention, we can’t know from week to week what’s gonna “offend” them.

[13Sisters76]

Let us begin by stating an embarrassing fact: “Latinos” are CAUCASIANS, and NOT-NOT- a separate “minority. And those few Mestizos with NO Spanish heritage are Mongolian.

Sooooo......

What “race” are speaking of, specifically?

[Cheetahcat]

“...not to mention, we can’t know from week to week what’s gonna “offend” them.”

Right the weekly cycle of screeching bad whitey.

[Lancey Howard]

Diversity is our strength.
There. That’s all I’ll say publicly. Conversation over.

How stupid does a white person have to be to talk about race?

[winner3000]

With the goal to peacefully co-exist, the original Lebanese Constitution parsed out the most important governmental positions (i.e. President, Prime Minister, head of the army, etc...) based on religion. The President would be Maronite Christian, the PM would be Sunni Muslim, etc.

Is it any wonder that religion continues to this day to divide the Lebanese? Is this the system that the United States really wants?

[eaglestar]

I’d much rather a discussion about whether what we’re experiencing is the hope and change Obama spoke of that leads to race being an resurrected topic of discussion.

[yldstrk]

Have we had the first cross eyed Supreme Court Justice yet? Or the first one with an ingrown toenail? Ot the first one with a club fot? r the first one with a cleft palate? sheesh. What a bunch of crop.

[Niteflyr]

A true scholar would have empathy for the person that worked hard and prepared for the test instead of a bunch of losers who were too stupid or too lazy pass the test.

Uh oh....

[driftless2]

I think the matter is pretty clear: those people who want “justice” based on the concept of racial spoils will love Sotomayor. Those who simply like the idea of justice applied equally without race and ethnicity fouling the equation will not.