May 27th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Department of Analogies
Looking over this table, I can certainly see why Sonia Sotomayor might remind you of someone nominated for the Supreme Court by George W. Bush:
And then there’s Ramesh Ponnuru who dubs her Obama’s Miers. Because, I guess, the qualifications Sotomayor holds only count as qualifications if you’re a white dude.
78 Responses to “Department of Analogies”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Denmark
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 27th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Matt, you see George Will’s column today? He says this about her controversial “I would hope that a wise latina…” etc quote:
And like conventional liberals, she embraces identity politics, including the idea of categorical representation: A person is what his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is, and members of a particular category can be represented — understood, empathized with — only by persons of the same identity.
When in that very speech she says this:
I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.
George Will is such trash.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:48 am
for some reason, ponnuru gets an occasional good word from progressives.
i hope behavior like this will remind everyone that he is basically another hack.
he may be smarter than jonah goldberg, but a smarter jonah is still a lying sack of shit.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:48 am
@ Satya: at this point, do you seriously expect George Will to be concerned with something as petty as facts when writing his columns?
May 27th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Of course the “wise Latina” line comes after this: “Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” So Sotomayor isn’t making some claim of unique wisdom for Latinas. She’s saying that race and sex can influence the decisions even of “wise” people, and that people who’ve faced discrimination may be in a better position to understand it, because they don’t have to make extra effort to understand the perspectives of the groups that are discriminated against. So it’s a good thing to have a diversity of races and genders on the bench.
Sotomayor really does seem to be good at making the case that diversity does matter.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:15 am
What sealed it for Sotomayor is when she wrote a note on puppy dog card to Obama, telling him:
“You are the best President ever–deserving of great respect!”
May 27th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Matt, did you see this on Mankiw’s blog?
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/05/scotus-appointee-is-spender.html
Sure, he got her name right, but can you imagine a pettier, more spiteful comment than this? That a person who has in general chosen public service over private practice, who as a result has made considerably less than she could have, hasn’t saved as much as his grandmother would have thought she should have?
This coming from a multimillionaire, at that.
SK
May 27th, 2009 at 9:22 am
awesome, dtm–i had forgotten that particular aspect of the miers debacle.
jesus, that crew was *so* bad. so stupid. so corrupt. so vicious. and so pathetic.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:25 am
The context, too, was that the court didn’t take on issues of race and sex discrimination until its membership became more reflective of society at large. Correlation doesn’t mean causation, but the correlation is significant.
A society in which minorities and women can be raised to the highest courts is one that is likely more willing to challenge (judicially) and address (through legislation and executive action) the legal overhang of earlier times in terms of their treatment of non-privileged groups. The days when “people” was legally construed to mean “white male property-owners” or “white men” are gone, but it doesn’t yet mean “people”.
There’s nothing wrong with the court (or other elements of government) being lagging indicators of social change, but what’s on display here, really, is one lagging indicator (the mostly old, mostly white, mostly male GOP) getty huffy about another one.
The interesting exception here is the military hierarchy, where there’s rarely any talk of “quota promotions”, and a considerably more diverse set of three- and four-star generals: Powell, Shinseki, Abizaid, Sanchez, Claudia Kennedy.
In other news, George Will is a good little hack, prepared to repeat the code that has been dictated to him.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Its rumored that both Sonia Sotomayor and Harriet Miers have vaginas.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:35 am
[...] Matt Yglesias chimes [...]
May 27th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Seems clear to me that Alito (third circuit) is better than Sotomayor, who only made it to the second circuit. That extra circuit means a lot and for an affirmative action baby like Sotomayor to be nominated without it is disgraceful. Hell, Jay Bybee should be pissed; he has NINE circuits.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Easy for a Harvard educated trust fund baby to say that the white males do not need any extra protection from the rabid left whose ultra radical policies are designed to destroy their very souls.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:03 am
I’m with you, Gregor, I’m pretty cool to the whole “soul destruction” part of Obama’s platform. On the other hand I like his health care stuff. Also, you lost me a little where you say we should oppose Judge Sotomayor because Matt’s parents had money.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:06 am
[...] Qualifications like time at Princeton, Yale Law, and on the Circuit Court that work well for guys with Italian names suddenly don’t work if you have a Spanish name. Heaven forbid someone were to decide that there ought to be at least [...]
May 27th, 2009 at 10:06 am
[...] Qualifications like time at Princeton, Yale Law, and on the Circuit Court that work well for guys with Italian names suddenly don’t work if you have a Spanish name. Heaven forbid someone were to decide that there ought to be at least [...]
May 27th, 2009 at 10:13 am
This is the dumbest argument you have made. The number of Ivy League degrees doesn’t impress me. And I really did graduate from an Ivy League college. Yeah, it was Cornell, which is obviously the Black Sheep. But your school licks the Bear’s balls. Your school has the reputation, but my school provides a real education. And you can’t say that.
Regardless, this woman is qualified. And here’s something that matters: not a single person who is on the Supreme Court has trial experience. And that’s fucked up because I do. As a defendant, of course, but at least I actually know how these proceedings work. And I’ve been in trials in many forms. I’ve been a Plaintiff too. And I’ve been a Witness, and an Expert Witness. And a Creditor. I suspect there may be forms that I don’t know of, but trust me, I’m familiar with court proceedings and being in courts. Unlike most of the guys on the Supreme Court. This woman will be the only one on the Court to have been Prosecututor. She will be the only one to have argued international banking cases. Ans she has more federal case experience prior t being a Justice than anyone who currently serves on the bench. And she clearly has a broader legal experience than anyone who has ever served on the Supreme Court. Let’s just give up this concept that she’s the first Hispanic Woman. That’s cool, but there’s nobody on the Court now who has had her experience before getting on the Court. If she’s not qualified, than everyone on the Court isn’t. Want to impeach them? If there’s any question, then let’s just impeach the entire Supreme Court on the grounds that they were never qualified to serve the office. And having served such little time in federal court, none of them were ever qualified to serve in the Supreme Court. She’s more qualified than any of them. Spent more time on the federal bench, and spent more time in private litigation. Take your pick which is more valuable, but she beats every single person who already sits on that Court anyway. So strike her down, but you better take down everyone who’s already there along with her. None of them have her credentials, and they certainly don’t have any right to be there. Let’s start with those Justices who have never actually been in court. I rank higher there, and I’m not even a lawyer. I rank higher because I’ve actually been in court, unlike every Supreme Court justice on the bench. And I’ve been in every kind of court those Justices might name. And some they can’t name. And if you think there’s only two sides, you haven’t really been in court. And there’s only two situations I haven’t been in: Judge and Prosecutor. I’ve been every kind of witness you can dream up, and I’ve been plaintiff and defendant, and I’ve served as my own lawyer. And I’ve been creditor. Never owed money in a court case except fr the court fees. But then again, if it’s a civil case, someone really does owe me money. At that point I’ll always win, I just wonder why someone would want to lose against me.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:16 am
You’re right, she has very similar qualifications as Alito. Most Dems (including Obama and Biden) voted against Alito. Does this mean that most Repubs can vote against Sotomayor without getting called racist misoginists? I doubt it.
Of course I personally wish that most Repubs would vote for her if nothing horrible that we haven’t already heard about comes out, and that none will even talk about fillibuster. The extent to which Dems have politicized the judicial nomination process sickens me and I wish we could just take the high ground and not play their game.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Does this mean that most Repubs can vote against Sotomayor without getting called racist misoginists? I doubt it.
Um, yes, of course it means that. It’s widely expected that anyone Obama nominates won’t get all that many Republican votes.
But, of course, if the talking points opposing her are largely about the “wise Latina” line and about the New Haven case, then yes, they’re going to get called racist misogynists. And it seems like that’s the path they’re going to go down.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Of course I personally wish that most Repubs would vote for her if nothing horrible that we haven’t already heard about comes out, and that none will even talk about fillibuster.
I, too, hope that Republicans will cease their new-found love for making every single action in the Senate require 60 votes, and return the filibuster to its previous status as something to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. I trust you agree.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:27 am
You’re right, she has very similar qualifications as Alito. Most Dems (including Obama and Biden) voted against Alito. Does this mean that most Repubs can vote against Sotomayor without getting called racist misoginists? I doubt it.
If they speak and vote against her because they think her judicial inclinations are likely to be wrong on various issues that come before the Supreme Court, no one will particularly care.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Don’t forget that Sotomayor and Alito are also both Catholic. I don’t know for sure, but I doubt Miers is.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:32 am
[...] going to try and avoid writing about the transparently stupid and toothless conservative howls in response to Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme [...]
May 27th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I, too, hope that Republicans will cease their new-found love for making every single action in the Senate require 60 votes, and return the filibuster to its previous status as something to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. I trust you agree.
I do agree. But PLEASE do not act like the Dems never used this and it is just the big ole mean Republicans. The tons of judical holds during the Bush years, I mean come on.
I want the Senate to go back to the old ways. I think you just want the Republicans to unilaterally disarm. This is the first Supreme Court nominee by a Dem to get any pushback at all in forever. Meanwhile, Bork got Borked, Souter was Bushes third nominee, Thomas got savaged, the made Alito’s wife cry, and the current President and VP voted against both of the last two justices. Dems started the tradition of playing hardball. Please stop whining about it now.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:51 am
You’re right, she has very similar qualifications as Alito. Most Dems (including Obama and Biden) voted against Alito. Does this mean that most Repubs can vote against Sotomayor without getting called racist misoginists? I doubt it.
It’s also particularly galling that so many prominent Republicans say the reason they’re worried about Sotomayor is because she doesn’t understand she has to rule from the law and not her “feelings”.
If you’re worried about coming off as a racist misogynist, maybe you shouldn’t make the centerpiece of your critique the baseless accusation that sitting appeals court judge understands less of our judicial system than a clever eight-year old.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. The Republicans chose this fight.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Might it have anything to do with the confirmation process itself? Maybe have anything to do with the fact the he continually stonewalled what seemed to be reasonable questions, and came across as liar who would say anything to get what he wanted?
I don’t know about anyone else, but I would vote against someone like that too, whatever their qualifications or predispositions.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Anon @24, here are the ways in which you are wrong.
1) The Empathy debate was started by Obama, not Republicans.
2) The Anti-Empathy arguement has been around for weeks, Sotamayor was nominated yesterday. The Anti-Empathy arguement would have been used no matter who Obama nominated. It would have been deployed exactly the same against a white male liberal as against a latina liberal. This is the DEFINITION of non-biased behavior, so trotting it out as a reason why we are racist misoginists is really stupid.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:10 am
“This is the first Supreme Court nominee by a Dem to get any pushback at all in forever.”
Right, right, because there have been so many Dem nominees in the last forty years.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:20 am
[...] Y has two posts up. One answering Ramesh’s “Harriet Miers” post from yesterday. And the other: As anyone [...]
May 27th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Some things in life are supposed to be mysterious. Sometimes, you have to just keep walking.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am
The Empathy debate was started by Obama, not Republicans.
No, it was just distorted beyond all recognition by Republicans, and oh yeah, distorted into something that plays upon stereotypes about women, and Latin women in particular.
Obama stated that empathy is a virtue in a judge, because it will allow her to have a better understanding of the facts of the cases that she rules on, and of the real-world implications of her decisions. Would anyone care to argue that having a better understanding of the facts of a case, or of the implications of a decision, is NOT a good thing in a judge? Anyone?
The Republicans responded not by addressing this argument, but by saying that “Maria” isn’t going to apply the law fairly, but will instead rule based her feelings, and be biased towards other Latinos.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:57 am
no, talk of “empathy” was started by bush sr., in his praise of clarence thomas:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/flashback-george-hw-bush-on-clarence-thomas-great-empathy.php
May 27th, 2009 at 11:58 am
[...] wit: this great table from Yglesias this [...]
May 27th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
[...] for me to contemplated. Qualifications like time at Princeton, Yale Law, and on the Circuit Court that work well for guys with Italian names suddenly don’t work if you have a Spanish name. Heaven forbid someone were to decide that [...]
May 27th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Well, I don’t know how much it matters, but since 3 is a bigger number 2, then the Third Circuit is OBVIOUSLY more important than the Second Circuit, so it’s totally unfair to compare Alito and Sotomayor. I repeat, 3 is a bigger number than 2, so “Sotomayor”=”totally inferior”.
My work here is done
May 27th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Is it common for conservatives to just completely give the game away like this and reveal how disingenuous they are, or are we just lucky to have caught one in the wild?
The same argument “used no matter who Obama nominated.” Breathtaking.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
[...] Qualifications like time at Princeton, Yale Law, and on the Circuit Court that work well for guys with Italian names suddenly don’t work if you have a Spanish name. Heaven forbid someone were to decide that there ought to be at least [...]
May 27th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
[...] Matt Yglesias provides this helpful chart: [...]
May 27th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
[...] Department of Analogies [...]
May 27th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
The same argument “used no matter who Obama nominated.” Breathtaking
Well, yeah. Obama set that up as part of his selection criteria so of course the case against that criteria would be used against any canidate nominated using that criteria. I’m sorry, I really don’t see why this is objectionable.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
[...] Qualifications like time at Princeton, Yale Law, and on the Circuit Court that work well for guys with Italian names suddenly don’t work if you have a Spanish name. [...]
May 27th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
You are a huge knob.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Just as long as the nom isn’t a heterosexual white male. They’re so uncool right now.
Put her on the SC, where her opinions are sure to be comedy gold, Scalia shreds her every chance he gets, and she will end up being just one of the many stains on Obama’s record.
For years after Obama is gone.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Well, reasonable people would, say, wait for Obama to choose a nominee, and then assess the qualifications and temperment of that specific person on their merits and suitability for the Supreme Court, and if they found that individual wanting, they would make a case for how that specific person was unsuitable for the Supreme Court.
But what you’ve unwittingly revealed, JD, is that it didn’t matter who Obama picked; that Obama picked him or her was sufficient to disqualify them in the eyes of conservatives – because conservatives are the foremost practitioners of identity politics, the critical identity being whether someone “is a conservative” or not.
That you openly admit that, no matter who Obama picked, you would use the same argument against them, is what’s so surprising and amazing. We’ve always suspected that conservatives operate in bad faith; you just confirmed it. You still don’t seem to know why, exactly, but that’s fine.
You’re right, incidentally, that it doesn’t make you racist. It makes you a moron.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Put her on the SC, where her opinions are sure to be comedy gold, Scalia shreds her every chance he gets, …
Ah, yes, the old myth that Nino is a brilliant legal mind who is a strict constructionist.
Except that he’s a judicial activist and ideological hack who “interprets” the law and the Constitution in whichever manner will provide the results he craves. It’s interesting that the Rethug attack dogs are yelping about Sotomayor’s “results-focused” decisions (or however they phrase it), when Scalia and his Sock Puppet (also hired for his “empathy”, what a surprise) are perhaps the best examples of that since Roger Taney graced the Court.
But, clearly, Sotomayor is not in Scalia’s league when it comes to Italian hand gestures of dubious taste, so that’s a DQ right there.
Floyd Alvis Cooper, we need your wisdom in this important matter!
May 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
You are just being obtuse on purpose. Lets try an example. Bush says he is going to pick a strict constructionalist. Liberals start arguing about why strict constructionalist thought is bad. Bush then picks his strict constructionalist. The arguements that liberals have developed over the past few weeks are then deployed against that person. The arguement doesn’t really have to change as the arguement is against the judicial theory of strict constructionalism, and the nominee is implicated only insomuch as they adhere to that philosiphy.
That is what happened with Roberts and Alito. And it is what happened with Sotomayor and the Empathy modle of jurisprudence. The reason that the nominee doesn’t really matter is that we have been put on notice that the nominee will adhere to this mode of thought so the counter arguement to Empathy/Constructionalism can be crafted in advance since the philosiphy doesn’t change no matter who adheres to it.
Do you get it now?
May 27th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Also, I would like to point out that before the Roberts nomination Harry Reid gave a press conference where he asked Bush to pick a moderate nominee. He allowed that Bush would pick a conservative but asked that it be a moderate conservative. He suggested Roberts as an example. Roberts was picked days latter. And then Reid (and Obama and Biden) attacked Roberts as to far right to be on the court. This is because it is Reid’s job to defend the principles he advocates at all times. So strong a liberal as John Stewart made fun of the democrats for knocking Roberts essentially for not being a liberal.
This is not a ‘both sides do it’ excuse, though you may think it is.
Actually I think I know what is throwing you. I say we will attack anyone Obama nominates. You see this and think ‘aha, he attacks sigh unseen he doesn’t care about the nominee’. I suppose what I should have said is that Obama said he would nominate a Pro-Empathy nominee, I took him at his word, and so anyone Obama would nominate I will attack with the Anti-Empathy arguement. Yes, I suppose it is enough for me that Obama nominated them so I will use the arguement. But not because I have blind Obama rage, but rather because Obama set the standard that anyone who he nominated would follow the Empathy standard and thus be attackable by the Anit-Empathy arguement.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I know Yglesias went to Harvard so he has that privileged Ivy-league bias, but: What’s wrong with SMU? Also, why assume that every white male or female who didn’t get into Princeton or Yale, perhaps having been racially penalized by “affirmative action,” wouldn’t also have graduated, perhaps even more impressively than Sotomayor?
May 27th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
P.S. Did either of Yglesias’s parents attend Harvard? If true, just curious if he mentioned that fact on his application. Also, I doubt the last name “Yglesias” hurt his chances.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I just noticed that Yglesias, prior to attending Harvard, attended a very expensive and exclusive private prep school in New York City. Why must children of such privilege assuage their guilt through largesse to non-whites at the expense of poor and working-class whites? These fuckers, like Ted Kennedy, take all the advantages their births provide but once they’ve milked their privilege for all its worth, then play fast and loose with the Constitutional rights of the white children of the working class.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
I guess what puzzles me is the right-wing shriek that empathy and being a “good” (i.e. sticks to The Law) judge/justice are mutually exclusive. Especially when Nino has been remarkably empathetic regarding the plight of the police who might have overstepped their bounds, or the po’ white folk who suffer “reverse discrimination”, or the downtrodden at VMI. Oh, right, I forgot – IOKIYAR.
If the law’s meaning were clearly understood – both the denotation and the connotation – in all circumstances and situations, as the right wingers seem to keep implying with their “strict constructionist” blather, then there would be no need for the Supreme Court to issue an opinion of any kind. Or, at the least, “settled law” would remain such for all time.
And Plessy v. Ferguson would still be the law of the land, and Dred Scott’s descendants would still be slaves, Barack Obama would be considered 70% of a man, and Clarence Thomas only 60%. Which I guess would make the wingnuts cream their jeans.
Of course, since Roberts was a big proponent of stare decisis during his hearings, then that means he won’t be so judicially active. What? What’s that you say? Roberts seems to have forgotten that part of his confirmation spiel? Perish the thought!
May 27th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Why must children of such privilege assuage their guilt through largesse to non-whites at the expense of poor and working-class whites?
Yeah, doesn’t it suck big time when the darkies manage to get a little of what the oppressed whites have had for 200 or so years? I mean, who the fuck do they think they are? Equal to white people? They oughta know their place!
One thing though: at least be true to yourself, and call them niggers, spics, wetbacks, chinks, and so forth, instead of being a fucking pussy with the “non-whites” usage.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
OK, SFAW, ignore what I wrote and call me a racist. Well done, genius.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
P.S., dick, the “chinks” are hurt by racial preferences/penalties too. I don’t know about the “so forths”…can you be more specific?
May 27th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
P.P.S. Read the Constitition and the Federalist Papers, then get back to me.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Would you like to make an argument that the math portion of the SAT is more culturally biased than the verbal part? Waiting for your response, Sharpton.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
And while you’re at it, google “John U. Ogbu”.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Ugh, you’re no fun. Back to class with you!
May 27th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
OK, SFAW, ignore what I wrote and call me a racist.
Well, I didn’t use the word, but if the shoe fits …
Well done, genius.
Why, how nice of you to notice, SFB.
P.S., dick, the “chinks” are hurt by racial preferences/penalties too.
Really? How so? (And I realize you’re tough and all that, but “dickhead” is the appropriate form of address.)
P.P.S. Read the Constitition …
I have the Constitution. And still do. And amazingly enough, I can actually understand it! (Nah, just kidding, I’m sure you know TONS more about it than everybody this side of Scalia.)
… and the Federalist Papers, then get back to me.
Damn, I had forgotten that SCOTUS rulings decide whether a law is Federalistutional! What a dummy I am! Thanks for helping me!
Would you like to make an argument that the math portion of the SAT is more culturally biased than the verbal part? Waiting for your response, Sharpton.
Few would confuse me with Rev. Al – his hair is better, and he has a lot more of it. As to your “point” – why would I want to do that? It isn’t – directly. But the whole issue is significantly more complex than your brain could handle, so let’s just stay with “It isn’t”.
And while you’re at it, google “John U. Ogbu”.
I’m sure there’s some point you’re trying to make, but who the hell knows what it is?
Ugh, you’re no fun. Back to class with you!
Aw, I wasn’t waiting by the Intertubes for your tremendously insightful and intelligent answers, so now you’re stamping your Precious Little Feetsies (which I’ve been told is a good name for a rock group or some such). I’m sure yer Momma will kiss your booboo and make it all better. Meanwhile, I have work to do, I’ll check back later for your latest pulings.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Ponnuru responds here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDZkYTNhYjlhZmE3OWMwMWViODM3YjRhNjQ3MWEwZTU=
And it’s Ponnuru by rear-naked choke. Try finding a new tack, Yglesias.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
and, of course, it should have been “I have read the Constitution”.
Ah, well, so it goes …
May 27th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
John U. Ogbu was an anthropology professor at Berkeley. His investigations into the disparity between white and black achievement, even among affluent groups, is due to black cultural attitudes toward education. And the Federalist Papers function more or less as a gloss for the Constitution, giving insight as to why it was written, the philosophy underlying it, its purpose, goals etc.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I thought you were bragging that you owned a copy.
Indeed it does, whatever you mean by “it.” I’m sure it’s something impressive.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:40 am
[...] Qualifications like time at Princeton, Yale Law, and on the Circuit Court that work well for guys with Italian names suddenly don’t work if you have a Spanish name. Heaven forbid someone were to decide that there ought to be at least [...]
May 28th, 2009 at 2:18 am
John U. Ogbu was an anthropology professor at Berkeley. His investigations into the disparity between white and black achievement, even among affluent groups, is due to black cultural attitudes toward education.
I would guess that you’re missing a word or two in there, since your statement makes no sense. But assuming you meant to write what Ogbu posited: his study showed one thing, a later study (by others) contradicted Ogbu’s conclusions. But of course, Ogbu’s study resonates with the Herrnstein/Murray/Shockley acolytes, so that’s the one they choose to mention.
And the Federalist Papers function more or less as a gloss for the Constitution, giving insight as to why it was written, the philosophy underlying it, its purpose, goals etc.
Like why there shouldn’t be a Bill of Rights? (#84) Heaven help us if Scalito et al. decide they want to follow that one. The point is: they’re not the Constitution, and using them to justify certain decisions by the wingnut side of the Court shows a desire by Roberts (let’s say, since he’s a Federalist Society hot shit) to understand the motives of Madison, Hamilton, et al. And another word for that is … empathy.
Indeed it does, whatever you mean by “it.” I’m sure it’s something impressive.
For someone as impressed with your own intelligence as you obviously are, one would think you’d know how to use Teh Google. Oh, right, “so it goes” didn’t have anything to do with how anti-education them darkies is, so there’s no need to look it up. Sorry for confusing you.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Any study, especially a study produced by a group with an agenda (e.g., one designed to contradict a politically unpalatable former study) can be used to produce almost any result. Ogbu had no agenda and admitted he was not happy with his findings. Also, the fact that you cite Herrnstein/Murray/Shockley (obviously the same person to you) shows that you didn’t actually understand Ogbu’s findings. The point is not innate intellectual inferiority but rather cultural attitudes that result in lower academic achievment. However, if you prefer to simply scream “racist” then I’m not surprised that you didn’t even name that study for me. Now stop the name calling and get to googling. Just out of curiosity, do you actually think you’re smarter than John Roberts or Sam Alito? Or just more empathetic? And how would your empathy and knowledge of the Bill of Rights relate to the Ricci case?
May 28th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Analogous – similar or equivalent in some respects though otherwise dissimilar
Just because some things differ, it doesn’t make it a bad analogy. Also, I think that to discredit the statement from Justice O’Connor, “that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases,” you’re discreditting the objectivity of the rule of law.
If we allow empathy, or mercy, due to personal prejudices, to be applied ambiguously in court, then I think each plaintiff should be allowed to openly shop for judges (since the rule of law would differ based on the racial/sexual background of the judge).
May 28th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
You’ve skipped over the part where you actually check to make sure that Bush picked someone who actually is a “strict constitutionalist.” (Hint – none of the justices he appointed actually are.)
Similarly, you’ve skipped over the part where you make the case that Sonia Sotomayor specifically is going to make bad rulings out of “empathy”, or whatever. You’ve just taken an out-of-context statement by the President as a basis to oppose whoever he picked, regardless if the argument applies to that specific pick.
It’s hilariously disingenuous – you were going to oppose whoever the President picked, for whatever reason seemed most tenable, it having absolutely nothing to do with the qualifications, temperament, or suitability of the specific pick. The funniest thing is that Obama has outsmarted you all yet again – your most tenable reasons for opposition are all either transparently stupid or startlingly racist.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Any study … can be used to produce almost any result.
No shit. About time you figured that out. And the results need not support the “conventional wisdom”.
Ogbu had no agenda …
Nice to know we have mind readers walking among us. It’s like a cross between “X-Files” and “Heroes”. How cool is that?
But here’s a clue: everyone has an agenda. Some may not realize that they do, but that lack of realization doesn’t eliminate the agenda.
… and admitted he was not happy with his findings.
So?
Also, the fact that you cite Herrnstein/Murray/Shockley (obviously the same person to you) shows that you didn’t actually understand Ogbu’s findings.
Yeah, I get Ogbu and Shockley mixed up all the time, probably because Ogbu used to pal around with Bardeen a lot.
Actually, it is you who does not understand what I wrote in the previous comment. I get that a lot from grade-schoolers; from educated adults, not so much. It’s probably because the comment to which you’re referring went counter to your agenda or something like that.
However, if you prefer to simply scream “racist” then I’m not surprised that you didn’t even name that study for me.
Ah, so now it’s “screaming”. Well, as I said before, if the shoe fits … but you’ll find that nowhere did I call you a “racist”.
And, because I’m a kind-hearted soul: Tyson/Darity, out of UNC Chapel Hill. Frankly, I have no idea whether either one of the studies (Ogbu or Tyson/Darity) is valid. If I remember correctly, the meaning/results of the Hawthorne experiments would undergo modification every few years. As the parable says: “We’ll see.”
Just out of curiosity, do you actually think you’re smarter than John Roberts or Sam Alito?
Boy, I hope I’m not. If I am, then those guys must be the George W. Bushes of the SCOTUS. But what does that have to do with anything discussed in this string? Because I mentioned the Federalist Society? You’re really grasping at straws.
Or just more empathetic?
I don’t know about Roberts, but Alito is clearly more empathetic than I, based on his testimony during his confirmation hearings, and the comments from people like Orrin Hatch.
And how would your empathy and knowledge of the Bill of Rights relate to the Ricci case?
I thought Wednesday was Prince Spaghetti day, did they change it?
Since that’s probably a little too abstruse for you: you’ve now degenerated into throwing anything you can against the wall, to see if any of it sticks. Nice try, but pretty transparent.
As far as Ricci: don’t know anything about it, other than it’s the case that wingnuts are using to demonstrate Sotomayor’s liberal activism or some such. Maybe some day I’ll get around to reading it, or about it, but not today.
Time for you to toddle off for milk and cookies.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Ogbu’s study has more credibility because he did not seek out this study, he, specifically him, was asked by the affluent black parents in that school district to investigate why their kids got lower grades than their white counterparts. And he was hoping to FIND white racism. When he did go to the city, living with families, spending time at the school, analyzing all aspects of their lives like a good anthropologist should, he came to a different conclusion. However his conclusion was that the problem was NOT white racism. Thus his conclusion was rejected.
You said,
“Yeah, doesn’t it suck big time when the darkies manage to get a little of what the oppressed whites have had for 200 or so years? I mean, who the fuck do they think they are? Equal to white people? They oughta know their place!
One thing though: at least be true to yourself, and call them niggers, spics, wetbacks, chinks, and so forth, instead of being a fucking pussy with the “non-whites” usage.”
If that’s not calling me a racist, I don’t know what is. So you’re a liar too. But then I already knew that.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Also, you don’t need to look into the facts or legal issues in the Ricci case. It will be overturned within a few weeks anyway, producing a new race-preferences/penalties precedent. Ironically, you can thank Sotomayor and the city of New Haven for that.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Oh, and rather “abstruse,” you probably meant obscure; and it was.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
For what it’s worth, Ogbu’s work has largely been discredited in the last 15 years and has been henceforth cited in more recent work only to illustrate the ways in which it’s wrong. And yes, there was a lot of serious methodological issues with the paper on Shaker Heights.
It’s not as dubious has “having an agenda,” but his sample wasn’t representative, thus, his conclusions remain problematic.
So actually, in the world of academia, Ogbu’s study doesn’t have any credibility, and is pretty severely outdated.
May 28th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
No, I’m afraid the word really should be “abstruse”.
The Prince Spaghetti reference was/is hardly obscure, unless you’re under 25 or so.
The throwing-spaghetti-against-the-wall idea/characterization is hardly obscure, unless you’ve never been in a business environment. Even then, it’s probably not obscure
Using the spaghetti metaphor relative to your then-latest babbling (Bill of Rights? Empathy? Ricci?) is what made it abstruse. I thought I’d be charitable, and explain it to you. Obviously, that was futile.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Why must children of such privilege assuage their guilt through largesse to non-whites at the expense of poor and working-class whites?
His investigations into the disparity between white and black achievement, even among affluent groups, is due to black cultural attitudes toward education.
I see your point; there’s not even the slightest whiff of a hint that you’re talking about undeserving non-whites, nor that it’s a “cultural thang” for the blacks.
So, my bad.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
So actually, in the world of academia, Ogbu’s study doesn’t have any credibility, and is pretty severely outdated.
Now you’ve done it.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
So actually, in the world of academia, Ogbu’s study doesn’t have any credibility, and is pretty severely outdated.
Now you’ve done it.
Uh oh!
But seriously, the study in question is properly cited as (FORDHAM and Ogbu, 1986), from which all the “acting white” and black cultural attitudes toward school such and such came from. Twenty-three subsequent years of research has, to put it lightly, altered our thinking about cultural engagement with education.
If only we left our ivory towers…
May 28th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
[...] Qualifications like time at Princeton, Yale Law, and on the Circuit Court that work well for guys with Italian names suddenly don’t work if you have a Spanish name. Heaven forbid someone were to decide that there ought to be at least [...]
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
[...] Qualifications like time at Princeton, Yale Law, and on the Circuit Court that work well for guys with Italian names suddenly don’t work if you have a Spanish name. Heaven forbid someone were to decide that there ought to be at least [...]