On Race and Judges, Trump Isn't a Racist nor a Conservative -- He's a Standard Issue Liberal

There's no part of a minority that's expected to rule in solidarity with his race?

No particular racial mode of thinking a minority brings to the table?

That would be a shock to these liberals:

"It's impossible not to be disgusted at someone who could benefit so much from affirmative action and then pull up the ladder after himself. "

Did Jake Tapper call Maureen Dowd a "textbook racist" for that bit of demagoguery?

Of course not.

Did Paul fucking Ryan?

I doubt it.

He sure didn't remember objecting to it when called upon to comment upon Trump's similar race essentialism. Guess it didn't make much of an impression on him then.

Incidentally, Clarence Thomas is a figure of hate for the left because of his relative uniqueness.

Therefore, in the minds of liberals, most black judges are sufficiently solicitous of the political interests of their own races.

Again-- any upset from the liberals over this liberal idea that judges of color are supposed to "look out for their own"?

None.

This "Thomas pulls the ladders up from other blacks (which most black judges don't do)" critique is of course not original to Dowd -- nothing is original to this tired, sad hag. It's standard issue liberal cant.

None of which is ever objected to by our liberal media masters.

Indeed, Clarence Thomas is attacked for his race quite frequently, on bizarrely unrelated grounds.

The left is renewing its venomous, racist attacks on Thomas in the aftermath of his dissent in the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in favor of gay marriage.

Actor George Takei smeared Thomas as a “clown in blackface.” The Huffington Post called his dissent “beyond ridiculous” and tarred him as a hypocrite for opposing a court-created “right” to gay marriage:

“Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman — something that would be illegal today, if it weren’t for the Supreme Court’s historic Loving v. Virginia ruling.” As if his personal life is fair game.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Last Friday, in another low blow, New York Times reporter Adam Liptak portrayed Thomas as a lightweight whose opinions are cut-and-paste jobs from briefs submitted to the court.

Do Hispanics have a different style of judging than whites -- a different set of inputs leading to a different array of outputs?

Yes indeed they do, says liberal Justice Sandra Sotomayor.

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge "may and will make a difference in our judging."

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion -- often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor -- that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

Indeed, President Obama himself has suggested that minority judges like Sotomayor may bring something to the bench that whites can't bring -- "empathy."

Republicans have signaled that they intend to put the eventual nominee under a microscope, and they say they were put on guard by Mr. Obama's statement that judges should have "empathy," a word they suggest could be code for injecting liberal ideology into the law.

Now some conservatives will claim that they agree with the above-going complaints.

But okay -- then why didn't you say so?

Because these quotes were insanely easy to find.

If you had any interest at all in attacking both Trump and the liberal race-based worldview he seems to espouse, you could have done so.

But you didn't.

You only seemed interested in joining the PC Pitchfork Brigade.

You may disagree with Trump's Standard Liberal Take on Race Essentialism.

However, if you do not simultaneously point out that this is the Standard Liberal Take, and is, when uttered by any liberal, completely unremarkable and indeed routine, then your goal here is not to push back against PC Speechcodes and Racethink -- but to advance it, because it temporarily (?) serves your interests to do so.

Shall we search for more quotes, or will everyone concede the left routinely attacks conservative minorities for not having sufficient race solidarity, and routinely praises liberal minorities for thinking in racially-harmonious ways?

By the Way: The media recently had yet another Race-Affects-Judgments-In-Legal-Contexts-When-We-Say-It-Does moment, on May 23:

Why no one ever talks about racial inputs affecting legal outputs-- except the left and the media (but I repeat myself), constantly!

posted by Ace at 04:13 PM

| Access Comments