The point I am making is about the infuriating DEFAULT NORMATIVE POSITION that white males occupy in this society. So it is assumed that if a white male is chosen, it must be BECAUSE he is qualified, and so there are no markers identifying him for further scrutiny. But when it is a woman or a so-called minority, then they are NOT automatically assumed to the best qualified. They are marked by their gender and/or race/ethnicity.

I thought we just went through an election where it was settled that the smartest person on all fronts won.

Relying on rumor and “anonymous sources” gets a very bold-typed “F” from any professor of Journalism 101. Without credibility derived from fact-based research and sources (preferably identifiable ones) who discuss actual cases rather than throw such nebulous labels around about “temperament,” nothing Jeff Rosen says matters one iota, and you know it. If temperament is the measure, how come it did not disqualify Scalia?

At the end of reading Rosen's hatchet job I did not learn a single thing about Sotomayor's professional record in order to make an informed decision about her one way or the other. how did Rosen manage that singular feat of penning so many words yet saying absolutely nothing of consequence?

Do you have to be so blinded by ideology that you fail to recognize stupidity when it stares you in the face?

The point I am making is about the infuriating DEFAULT NORMATIVE POSITION that white males occupy in this society. So it is assumed that if a white male is chosen, it must be BECAUSE he is qualified, and so there are no markers identifying him for further scrutiny. But when it is a woman or a so-called minority, then they are NOT automatically assumed to the best qualified. They are marked by their gender and/or race/ethnicity.

I thought we just went through an election where it was settled that the smartest person on all fronts won.

Relying on rumor and “anonymous sources” gets a very bold-typed “F” from any professor of Journalism 101. Without credibility derived from fact-based research and sources (preferably identifiable ones) who discuss actual cases rather than throw such nebulous labels around about “temperament,” nothing Jeff Rosen says matters one iota, and you know it.

At the end of reading Rosen's hatchet job I did not learn a single thing about Sotomayor's professional record in order to make an informed decision about her one way or the other. how did Rosen manage that singular feat of penning so many words yet saying absolutely nothing of consequence?

Do you have to be so blinded by ideology that you fail to recognize stupidity when it stares you in the face?

Don't think that a comment that lacks racial epithets isn't racist…

The first sentence of my third paragraph is confusing…

On topic, though, this woman is clearly none of the things they call her — well, perhaps she's obnoxious, but what's that got to do with anything? So if these are blatant lies or don't really matter as far as her job performance goes, what's the purpose of such smear?

Understand that just because a person doesn't make comments riddled with racial epithets that means their comment isn't inherently racist. It's THOSE types of comments (racist ones that have no racial epithets) that are the worst because they allow people to walk in and say “that's not racist…” and further this idea that racism in our country is not a significant problem when it IS. Sometimes, it is about a person's motives, and this isn't just about “we don't want her on the bench because she's underqualified” she's probably overqualified so they result to these underhanded and dispicable smears that others actually buy into without ever once stopping to ask “but why would you say those things when all facts point to the opposite?”

+ Rahm's immigration turnabout

It was not so long ago that Rahm Emanuel was on the House Democratic leadership team and being accused of throwing immigrants “under the bus” for the sake of strengthening Democrats’ power in the House.

As the engineer of the Democrats’ 2007 takeover of Congress, Emanuel was viewed as stalling House consideration of broad immigration legislation, fearing that Democrats in Republican-leaning districts would become roadkill at the hands of angry voters. Even a Democratic president would have to wait until his second term to take on the issue, Emanuel once opined.

But now, as President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Emanuel is removing roadblocks that stand in the way of some of the legislative agenda benefitting immigrants, ethnic minorities and their advocates.

THERE IS MORE.

Since the publication of this article – 2/17/09- she's been RELATIVELY QUIET!!

Soooo, WHERE IS THE ACTIVISM???

WATCHIN'. . . . . . .

Try this “Sessions Rewind”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30589583

All we need do is look no further than who were the blacks in power that came out pro-Obama, even after he won 11 consecutive primaries?

Not Sharpton, Jackson, Young, Waters or virtually the entire CBC stepped up and stood with Obama. They stood with the 'status quo' to protect their own political futures.

It is no different for Sotomayor.

WE have to be the change. WE have to make the difference!

As MLK said, 'injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'

and in that sense…it is all of us who must fight for Sotomayor just as it took more than just blacks to elect Obama, so do will it require a collectively, national effort of all folks in this country to push back against how Sotomayor is being smeared.