Rush Limbaugh on Sonia Sotomayor Nomination "Reverse Racist"

[SkinsTerps26]

wha?

http://thepage.time.com/rush-limbaugh-on-sonia-sotomayor-nomination/

full thing is at the bottom, here is the newser recap

"Rush Limbaugh took some calculated shots at Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on his show today, calling her a "reverse racist," a "hack," and "an affirmative action case extraordinaire," notes Mark Halperin's The Page blog at Time. Limbaugh—who punctuated his criticisms with the phrase, 'AP, you gettin this?"—said he doubts the nomination can be stopped, but he urged Republicans to "go to the wall" to oppose her. "Do I want her to fail?" Limbaugh asked. "Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yeah, she'd be a disaster on the court. Do I still want Obama to fail as president? Yeah. AP, you gettin' this? He's gonna fail anyway, but the sooner the better so as little damage can be done to the country." Limbaugh says Sotomayor has "put down white men in favor of Latina women."

Do you think we should go to the mat stopping Sotomayor? Do you think we oughta go to the wall to oppose her? And I said absolutely we should. Once again, an opportunity to draw the distinct contrast that exists today between conservatives and those in the Republican Party to President Obama. I doubt that Sotomayor can be stopped. She should be. She is a horrible pick, she is the antithesis of a judge by her own admission and in her own words. She has been overturned 80 percent by the Supreme Court, she may as well be on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals given all the time she's overturned. She has been reprimanded by a truly strong Hispanic judge, Jose Cabranes, she has been rebuked in writing by Cabranes for opinions that she wrote that had no bearing on the constitutional issues before her in the case that was being decided.

But here is why -- even though she may not be able to be stopped -- here is why Sonia Sotomayor needs to be opposed by the Republicans as far as they can take it. Because the American people need to know who Barack Obama really is and his choice of Sonia Sotomayor tells everybody, if we will tell the story of her, who he is. He got up in his announcement and said everything about her that isn't true: that she's great constitutionalist, that she doesn't use personal opinion, that she understands what her role is and the oath is of a Supreme Court justice. She has done just the opposite of that. She is a hack like he is a hack in the sense that the court is a place to be used to make policy, not to adjudicate cases, not to adjudicate constitutional law but to make policy. She's even admitted it.

She is the embodiment of the criticism of a judge or a justice who is all wrong for the highest court in the land. So of course the Republican Party should go to the mat on this because in the process of doing so, the American people will find out more about Barack Obama and who he really is, what he really believes in, and her choice -- this choice -- helps to tell the real story of Barack Obama. This is a debate worth having .

This is why this is actually a good choice in terms -- I mean, do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yeah, she'd be a disaster on the court. Do I still want Obama to fail as president? Yeah - AP, you gettin' this? He's gonna fail anyway but the sooner the better so as little damage can be done to the country.

So, here you have a racist. You might want to soften that and you might wanna say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist and now he's appointed one -- getting this, AP? -- Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court ...

So she's not the brain that they're portraying her to be, she's not a constitutional jurist. She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire and she has put down white men in favor of Latina women. She has claimed that the court is all about making policy. So yes, there's a golden opportunity. Take this to the mat. Take it to the wall. The people need to know what Obama really believes in and this is how it could happen. Now will the Republicans do it? That's another question.

[#98QBKiller]

What did you expect him to say, something rational?

[KevinthePRF]

Reason number 4572309587123904720953489027534242890574329087523480957342908574928075438907534890875892370492709253890578234905723487907289032748905703893457893257 the guy is an agent of hate.

[NavyDave]

He didn't mention her pro Union stances, though her keeping USC Mike Williams and Ohio State's Maurice Clarette from challenging the NFLs rules for hardship (only to prevent NFL union veterans from potentially losing their jobs to non union types though they would have joined a union if allowed to signed, which led to Clarette balking initially at joining the union) probably saved the Redskins and Maddenites from screwing up and salivating as well as selecting one of these over hyped collegiate frauds.

[NavyDave]

Yeah there is reverse racism and the white guys who complain about it get smeared and told to shut up, smile and the bear the burden of centuries unfairness by those they aren't related to other than lacking of a gorgeous permanent tan (like me) and not having the rhythm gene.

Heck whats ironic is seeing and hearing well to do liberal whites bash other whites wanting fairness while the liberals claim they are color blind.

[Smoot Point Really]

If it is true that she has been overturned 80% of the time, that is interesting and something that should be looked into. The "agent of hate" comment is a bit uncalled for... The content of what Limbaugh said here is controversial, but there is quite a bit more to glean here than "hate" (unless that is all you really want to see).

[Tulane Skins Fan]

He didn't mention her pro Union stances, though her keeping USC Mike Williams and Ohio State's Maurice Clarette from challenging the NFLs rules for hardship (only to prevent NFL union veterans from potentially losing their jobs to non union types though they would have joined a union if allowed to signed, which led to Clarette balking initially at joining the union) probably saved the Redskins and Maddenites from screwing up and salivating as well as selecting one of these over hyped collegiate frauds.

You take that case so far out of context, and/or have no idea what the issues were.

To sum up, neither the union nor the league wanted Clarett to be allowed to participate in the draft. To trump that up as some sort of "pro-union" stance, when the league fought Clarett harder than anyone else is both irresponsible and wrong.

[NavyDave]

You take that case so far out of context, and/or have no idea what the issues were.

To sum up, neither the union nor the league wanted Clarett to be allowed to participate in the draft. To trump that up as some sort of "pro-union" stance, when the league fought Clarett harder than anyone else is both irresponsible and wrong.

Dude I am applauding her for saving my Redskins and she did take a pro union stance. She used the NFLPA union vs Clarette and Williams not being union member as part of her argument and reasoning. In this case since it saved my skins it was a good thing.

Just like when she effectively ended the baseball strike.

[Mickalino]

This is very similar to the McNabb comment he made on MNF (and many others) where basically what he is saying is true, however he makes himself look like a fool in the way he expresses. Yea, there's reverse racism EVERYWHERE, but what does it accomplish to spout out hate over one single issue, and it makes him look like a hypocrite, bigot, and hate-monger. But like I said, he has some valid points, he just needs to know when to be quiet, and how to be discreet when he DOES talk.

By the way, I am heavily Pro-Limbaugh in the principles he stands for, but as for his behavior, I still wish he'd STFU

[#98QBKiller]

What would be the problem with a pro-union stance to begin with?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

What would be the problem with a pro-union stance to begin with?

Its LIBERAL! Ewwwww.

Perhaps ND was more or less making a joke, which I missed. But my point was that its not an accurate portrayal of the issues in the case.

[NavyDave]

What would be the problem with a pro-union stance to begin with?

You mean besides the UAW having majority stock in an auto company thanks to government intervention with GM probably next?

[#98QBKiller]

and not having the rhythm gene.

I've always found it odd that it's ok to make the "white boy can't dance" joke but all of a sudden you're racist when you make a "black boy loves KFC/watermelon joke."

Its LIBERAL! Ewwwww.

Yeah, I pretty much thought that's where it was going.

[#98QBKiller]

You mean besides the UAW having majority stock in an auto company thanks to government intervention with GM probably next?

I'm pretty sure I mean in general.

[NavyDave]

Its LIBERAL! Ewwwww.

Perhaps ND was more or less making a joke, which I missed. But my point was that its not an accurate portrayal of the issues in the case.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-04-19-nfl-clarett-appeal_x.htm

when Clarett's attorney, Alan Milstein, said that keeping the player out of the draft until three years after high school was an unreasonable restriction on his earning power.

"That's what unions do every day — protect people in the union from those not in the union," Judge Sonia Sotomayor said. "Why is this case different?"

As I said in this case I had no problem with the outcome because we had Maddenites man crushing on Mike Williams and Clarett and I had a feeling Snyderatto would have made a foolish move.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-04-19-nfl-clarett-appeal_x.htm

when Clarett's attorney, Alan Milstein, said that keeping the player out of the draft until three years after high school was an unreasonable restriction on his earning power.

"That's what unions do every day — protect people in the union from those not in the union," Judge Sonia Sotomayor said. "Why is this case different?"

That is what unions do. I'm not sure what your point is though, as usual. Its also a fair question... "why is this case different?" As in, explain to me what is violating antitrust law because there is an inherent friction between Labor Law and Antitrust Law that jurisprudists who study it - such as a Federal Appeallate Court Justice - are well aware of. Still not sure how that means she supported the NFLPA when the commissioner was fighthing to keep Clarett out. Are you insinuating that the League wanted Clarett to be able to enter the draft but the union would not let them?

Awesome google by the way, you now understand Labor Law and Antitrust Law. You should write a book.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

If it is true that she has been overturned 80% of the time, that is interesting and something that should be looked into. The "agent of hate" comment is a bit uncalled for... The content of what Limbaugh said here is controversial, but there is quite a bit more to glean here than "hate" (unless that is all you really want to see).

That pretty much sums up my thoughts here, too :yes:...

[Midnight Judges]

Reverse racist would be not racist. Discriminating against white people is just plain racist.

But what I really like about Obama's choice is that Republicans are taking the bait and attacking her regardless of the futility and the fact that she will be confirmed immediately and overwhelmingly. They are making themselves look bad, and gaining nothing from it.

[twa]

What would be the problem with a pro-union stance to begin with?

As a justice?...Do you need to ask?

I did think this was a good line despite the source:hysterical:

she may as well be on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals given all the time she's overturned

'

[#98QBKiller]

As a justice?...Do you need to ask?

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I said in general but would you expand on why specifically a justice shouldn't be pro-union?

[Henry]

Reverse racist would be not racist. Discriminating against white people is just plain racist.

But what I really like about Obama's choice is that Republicans are taking the bait and attacking her regardless of the futility and the fact that she will be confirmed immediately and overwhelmingly. They are making themselves look bad, and gaining nothing from it.

My wife, a Puerto Rican, has voted GOP in 4 of 5 Presidential elections, the only exception being Al Gore in 2000. She is a fairly die-hard conservative. Far more conservative than I am.

Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, today, did more to push her towards the left than anything I've said in 12 years of marriage.

Be veeery careful when talking **** about latinas.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

I don't like how Ricci v. DeStefano was handled at all....

But, I'm willing to learn more about her before going anywhere close to calling her a racist.

[twa]

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure I said in general but would you expand on why specifically a justice shouldn't be pro-union?

You left it out till later:)

A justice should be able to separate themselves from any personal bias or favoritism.

Having a favorable opinion of unions is not the same as being pro- union as a judge...again a fact not established

I think we are talking around each other.

[Destino]

You mean besides the UAW having majority stock in an auto company thanks to government intervention with GM probably next?

Unions aren't unconstitutional by any stretch of the imagination. Stopping them however can be. Justices should be "pro-union"

The one thing Limbaugh mentions that should be of interest if true is the 80% overturn rate. If that's true she might not be right for the top court.

[Destino]

As a justice?...Do you need to ask?

Yes. They are constitutional.