Sunday, July 12, 2009

Olberman leaves out an important line in Alito's statement

The Left has complained that the now famous quote of Judge Sotomayor was taken out of context. Let's look at the quote in total.

“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. Each day on the bench, I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion.

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extend that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences.”


Okay. That's what she said. Note that nothing after the now famous first sentence changes it. She has said that a wise Latina woman with her background would do a better job than whitey. She then expands it, but she doesn't change it.

No place does she say, I am who I am but my job is to understand that and rule based on the law. In fact, she enforces her statement at the close when she writes...."that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires."

Now the Right has taken her words and used them. The Left has countered that they were taken out of context. I have given you the complete quote and my view on it.

The Left has made other excuses. Among them is that what she said is really no different from what Judge Alito said.

“When a case comes before me involving, let‘s say, someone who is an immigrant,” said the nominee for the Supreme Court, “I can‘t help but think of my own ancestors because it wasn‘t that long ago when they were in that position. I have to say to myself and I do say to myself, you know, this could be your grandfather. This could be your grandmother.”

“When I get a case about discrimination,” the nominee continued, “I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender and I do take that into account.”


The problem is that the quote is incomplete, which is a far different cry that being out of context.

Both Sotomayor's and Alito's quote came from Keith Olberman's show on May 27.

Why am I not surprised?

But what, you may ask, is incomplete? What was left out? Well, sometimes answers come in strange places. Here is a video clip from KOS. Listen carefully starting at around the 1:35 mark..........

When a case comes before me involving, let‘s say, someone who is an immigrant,” said the nominee for the Supreme Court, “I can‘t help but think of my own ancestors because it wasn‘t that long ago when they were in that position and here is what was left out....."It's my job to apply the law...it's not my job to change or bend the law to achieve a result..." I have to say to myself and I do say to myself, you know, this could be your grandfather. This could be your grandmother.”


Now I am not an expert transcriber, so I may not have the words left out on Olbermann's show exact. But they are very, very close.

Now, why would someone leave out those words?? Simple. Because they change the meaning of what Alito said from him agreeing with the thrust of Sotomayor's comment to totally rejecting her comment.

Hat tip to The Dark Avenger who, over at TalkLeft, used the quote and got my bull shit detector fully engaged.

Thanks DA. That Secretary position is still open if you pick up cleaning and make coffee.

5 comments:

  1. Since you used your blog to attack me because you obviously had the change to respond to my posts here and choose not to do so, here are some Sotomayor quotes where she repeats the same sentiments as Alito did during his hearing for conformation:

    I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.

    1997 Senate confirmation hearing, reported in Deborah Tedford, ""Senate Will Have To Confirm Court Choice", NPR (2009-05-26).
    ..........................

    I understand Justice Scalia's jurisprudence to begin with a proposition that we should all agree to -- namely, that judges should try to interpret the law correctly, and without personal or political bias.
    2000 speech, reported in Sotomayor's jackpot win, court rulings revealed, MSNBC (June 5, 2009).

    I find the speech in this case patently offensive, hateful, and insulting. The Court should not, however, gloss over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives because it is confronted with speech it does not like.
    Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002) (dissenting).


    I wish I could do more, but even a secretary can't be held responsible for a boss who chooses to be dishonest in his work.

    Thanks for the mention, it was very cool.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2009/7/10/1172/23628/49#49

    And it was so sweet to use KOS to expose you and Olberman.

    Except for the fact that what Alito said:

    And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

    Is identical to what I quoted Sotomayor as being on the record as saying, and which I'll have to post again, so that it will be unmistakable to even the dullest lurker what is going on:

    I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.

    1997 Senate confirmation hearing, reported in Deborah Tedford, ""Senate Will Have To Confirm Court Choice", NPR (2009-05-26).
    ..........................

    I understand Justice Scalia's jurisprudence to begin with a proposition that we should all agree to -- namely, that judges should try to interpret the law correctly, and without personal or political bias.
    2000 speech, reported in Sotomayor's jackpot win, court rulings revealed, MSNBC (June 5, 2009).

    I find the speech in this case patently offensive, hateful, and insulting. The Court should not, however, gloss over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives because it is confronted with speech it does not like.
    Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002) (dissenting).

    Now, remember, folks, this is the DISSENT, in which she held that a NY cop SHOULDN'T BE FIRED for racist speech that she didn't like because he didn't do it on the job, and he had a First Amendment right to express his opinion, regardless of what she or anyone else thinks about it.

    Thanks for demonstrating your true colors for all to see, PPJ, and even the best secretary can't help it if the boss chooses to be dishonest, which is probably they you don't have one right now.

    Ta-ta for now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Attack you? Good heavens, I thought you deserved a hat tip. You don't want credit?

    Sotomayor said what she said. Olbermann left out what he left out of Alito's comments. It is obvious why he did what he did.

    Sotomayor's comments were racist and would destroy any one nominated by a Repoub. But she will get the chance to explain them.

    She will also get the chance to explain her New Haven firefighter's ruling. I wonder how many others like that are hiding in the bushes....

    BTW - Since you have demonstrated your inability to spell "chance" I must withdraw my offer to you become the blog secretary.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My haert is so broken, but since you've already misspelled the titles to 4 of your blog posts that I know of, it's clear to all but the dullest persons reading these comments that I've a long way to go before I need a secretary as badly is you do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A secretary is hired to have spelling skills... A manager is hired to have managing skills.

    It appears you missed out on both.

    Ta Ta !!!

    ReplyDelete