Sotomayor and Liberal Hypocrisy
Actions that are Affirmative
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
President Obama’s choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter is yet another attempt at pandering to a goodly swath of voters. Latinos are no doubt happy with his choice; I’m sure they’ll vote accordingly.
Sotomayor, however, describes herself as “the perfect product of Affirmative Action; (I’m) an Affirmative Action baby. My test scores were not as high as some of my colleagues at Princeton and Yale…”
So there it is, in her own words.
Do you know what this means? It means that, somewhere out there, there are likely at least a few other judges, her “colleagues at Princeton and Yale”, who---lacking the proper ethnic qualities or economic circumstances to garner them minority status, actually had to work for their grades--are much more qualified for the position.
She was able to coast through law school on Affirmative Action, handed her grades through slack, mandated by a government program, and now sees nothing wrong with being coasted into a lifetime gig on the Supreme Court in essentially the same way, and for the same reasons.
Affirmative Action is, and always has been patently, and even dangerously, unfair, despite its obvious attempt at mandating fairness.
I say “dangerously” because…well, I'll cite a case heard by Sotomayor herself; in 2003, the New Haven, CT Fire Dept. decided to base its promotions to lieutenant and captain on test scores, a logical move.
Sotomayor, however, describes herself as “the perfect product of Affirmative Action; (I’m) an Affirmative Action baby. My test scores were not as high as some of my colleagues at Princeton and Yale…”
So there it is, in her own words.
Do you know what this means? It means that, somewhere out there, there are likely at least a few other judges, her “colleagues at Princeton and Yale”, who---lacking the proper ethnic qualities or economic circumstances to garner them minority status, actually had to work for their grades--are much more qualified for the position.
She was able to coast through law school on Affirmative Action, handed her grades through slack, mandated by a government program, and now sees nothing wrong with being coasted into a lifetime gig on the Supreme Court in essentially the same way, and for the same reasons.
Affirmative Action is, and always has been patently, and even dangerously, unfair, despite its obvious attempt at mandating fairness.
I say “dangerously” because…well, I'll cite a case heard by Sotomayor herself; in 2003, the New Haven, CT Fire Dept. decided to base its promotions to lieutenant and captain on test scores, a logical move.
However, only one of those firemen receiving passing test scores proved to be a black man; all of the others were white.
In other words, this policy---requiring leaders of their FD to exhibit proper knowledge and skills to safely, effectively and efficiently hold the positions---would’ve left the New Haven FD less than “diverse”. They couldn’t have that! So naturally, the city threw out that horribly racist, unfair policy.
One of the higher scorers, a white man, rightfully sued for reverse discrimination. Sotomayor, doubtlessly drawing upon her positive life and career experiences with Affirmative Action, ruled against him.
Affirmative Action has always been ill-conceived and unfair. It’s yet another example of liberals celebrating mediocrity, and denigrating excellence and exceptionality, all in the name of that ever-important dynamic: “fairness”. Or, at least, the liberal's version of it.
Everything must be made “fair”; everybody gets a gold medal, regardless how illogical or wrong-headed that vision may be.
In other words, this policy---requiring leaders of their FD to exhibit proper knowledge and skills to safely, effectively and efficiently hold the positions---would’ve left the New Haven FD less than “diverse”. They couldn’t have that! So naturally, the city threw out that horribly racist, unfair policy.
One of the higher scorers, a white man, rightfully sued for reverse discrimination. Sotomayor, doubtlessly drawing upon her positive life and career experiences with Affirmative Action, ruled against him.
Affirmative Action has always been ill-conceived and unfair. It’s yet another example of liberals celebrating mediocrity, and denigrating excellence and exceptionality, all in the name of that ever-important dynamic: “fairness”. Or, at least, the liberal's version of it.
Everything must be made “fair”; everybody gets a gold medal, regardless how illogical or wrong-headed that vision may be.
Know what isn’t fair? Life. Sometimes, people just aren’t talented, or smart, enough to do the things they want. Maybe they have to do something else. It’s discriminatory, yes, but that’s the way it is; deal with it.
Letting some people slide through the rigors of college and career based on accident of birth, however, simply isn’t fair; to others, or even to them.
Just as a last observation, you know what else isn’t fair?
The Theory of Evolution; weaker species getting axed by stronger, more adept classes. Doesn’t everyone--everything--deserve the right to prosper and thrive? Not according to Darwin.
But ironically, liberals love his ideas--which clearly oppose Affirmative Action idealology--and battle fanatically for them, typically never realizing their own hypocrisy.
Letting some people slide through the rigors of college and career based on accident of birth, however, simply isn’t fair; to others, or even to them.
Just as a last observation, you know what else isn’t fair?
The Theory of Evolution; weaker species getting axed by stronger, more adept classes. Doesn’t everyone--everything--deserve the right to prosper and thrive? Not according to Darwin.
But ironically, liberals love his ideas--which clearly oppose Affirmative Action idealology--and battle fanatically for them, typically never realizing their own hypocrisy.
Stardock Forums
