Showing posts with label tom tancredo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tom tancredo. Show all posts

Friday, March 19, 2010

"Burn the Mexican flag!": A look back at the hateful anti-immigration rhetoric from 2006

From: Media Matters for America

March 18, 2010 4:17 pm ET — 40 Comments

In anticipation of the upcoming immigration marches, Media Matters for America has compiled a review of the hateful and outrageous right-wing rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate in 2006.

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrant-rights marchers, immigrants are seeking to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrant rights marchers are "racis[t]"

Right-wing rhetoric: Pro-immigration marchers should be arrested or deported

Right-wing rhetoric: Stoking fears over displays of the Mexican flag

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigration is an "invasion"

Right-wing rhetoric: U.S., Mexico are in a state of "war"

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrants are fundamentally altering American culture or way of life

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigration reform is part of plot to institute "North American Union"

Other hate speech and outrageous rhetoric

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrant-rights marchers, immigrants are seeking to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico

"Reconquista" is a discredited smear used by the right to generate fear of Latino immigrants. During the 2006 immigration debate, right-wing media repeatedly advanced the discredited smear that Mexican-Americans and Mexican citizens -- particularly "illegal aliens" -- are plotting to take over the U.S. Southwest for Mexico.

Dobbs referred to potential "army" of "illegal alien" "invaders" taking over Southwest. During an April 2006 broadcast of his now-defunct CNN show, Lou Dobbs introduced a report by stating: "There are some Mexican citizens and some Mexican-Americans who want to see California, New Mexico and other parts of the Southwestern United States given over to Mexico. These groups call it the reconquista, Spanish for reconquest. And they view the millions of Mexican illegal aliens in particular entering the United States as potentially an army of invaders to achieve that takeover." Correspondent Christine Romans reported, "Long downplayed as a theory of the radical ethnic fringe, the la reconquista, the reconquest, the reclamation, the return, it's resonating with some on the streets," and went on to say: "A lot of open borders groups disavow it completely. But the growing street protests in favor of illegal immigration, Lou, are increasingly taking on the tone of that very radicalism." [CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, 4/31/06]

CNN reporter referenced "the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour," used "Aztlan" graphic sourced to hate group. Lou Dobbs Tonight correspondent Casey Wian characterized then-Mexican President Vicente Fox's trip to Salt Lake City, Utah, as a "Mexican military incursion" and claimed that "[y]ou could call" Fox's trip to the United States "the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour." During Wian's report, CNN featured a graphic of "Aztlan" that was sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens -- an organization whose "Statement of Principles" reads: "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called 'affirmative action' and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 5/23/06]

Malkin: "[T]he vast majority of mainstream Hispanic politicians" embrace "the intellectual underpinnings of reconquista." On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin declared that protesters in Los Angeles were "people who believe that the American southwest belongs to Mexico, that we don't have a right to enforce our borders, and who do nothing more than try to sabotage our sovereignty." Malkin later added that "the kind of quote-unquote 'pride' that a lot of these illegal alien activists are touting now goes much further than just being proud about one's heritage and one's roots. The idea, the intellectual underpinnings of reconquista, are embraced by the vast majority of mainstream Hispanic politicians." [Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 3/30/06]

Wash. Times editorial: Protesters approve of "reconquista" agenda. A Washington Times editorial accused Latinos who protested against a proposal to restrict immigration of either supporting or having given "tacit approval" to the "reconquista" agenda of "Hispanic radicals," which the editorial said was the "reconquering of Mexican land lost during the Mexican-American war." [The Washington Times, 3/30/06]

Fox's Gibson suspicious that Latino advocacy groups are set on "retaking old Mexico territories ... by pure birth rate." While saying that he was citing an internal email from the National Council of La Raza, John Gibson claimed on his Fox News show that he was suspicious that advocacy groups like the NCLR favor "the so-called reconquista," which Gibson described as the "retaking of old Mexico territories, which are now part of the United States, by pure birth rate." Gibson also asserted that the NCLR "is a group dedicated to the betterment of the race," adding, "good, but try being American while you are at it, guys." [Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, 4/3/06]

O'Reilly: Purported immigrant protest "organizers" have hidden "hardcore militant agenda" to take back American Southwest. On his radio show, O'Reilly said that the "organizers" of immigrant rallies have a "hardcore militant agenda of 'You stole our land, you bad gringos.' " O'Reilly said that the "slogan" of the demonstrations' organizers was "[W]e didn't cross the border, the border crossed us," and that this meant that the organizers believed that Americans "stole [their] land." The organizers' hidden "agenda underneath," said O'Reilly, was that "now, we're going to take it back by massive, massive migration into the Southwest." [Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 5/1/06]

Buchanan: "Chicano chauvinists and Mexican agents" want to "take back through demography and culture what their ancestors lost through war." In his book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, published in August 2006, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan wrote: "Chicano chauvinists and Mexican agents have made clear their intent to take back through demography and culture what their ancestors lost through war." He also wrote that the United States must keep "Americans of European descent" from becoming the "minority" in order to "survive[]." [State of Emergency (Thomas Dunne Books)]

Malkin: "[W]e saw ... that supposed fringe" that favors reconquista "come out into the mainstream." O'Reilly said to Malkin, "So I know that there's an undercurrent of militancy that says, 'Hey, this is our territory. You stole it from us in the Mexican-American War. We're going to take it back now by illegal immigration.' But I think that's a fringe, nutty group, not the mass of millions that we have." Malkin replied: "Well, I guess I disagree with you there, Bill, because I mean, we saw in April and May of this year [2006] that supposed fringe come out into the mainstream. And it wasn't just a dozen folks who are ensconced in the ivory tower who believe that the Southwest is Aztlan and it belongs to them." O'Reilly later asked her: "You think that this massive immigration to the United States, 15 million strong, is a part of a plan to bring back territory to Mexico?" Malkin responded: "Well, I take the Mexican government at its word when it says that is exactly its plan." [The O'Reilly Factor, 8/23/06]

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrant rights marchers are "racis[t]"

Malkin: "[M]ilitant racism from another protected minority group was on full display" from "Latino supremacists." In her syndicated column, Malkin wrote of immigration rallies, "Well, this weekend, militant racism from another protected minority group was on full display. But you wouldn't know it from press accounts that whitewashed or buried the protesters' virulent anti-American hatred." Malkin also wrote: "Apologists are quick to argue that Latino supremacists are just a small fringe faction of the pro-illegal immigration movement (never mind that their ranks include former and current Hispanic politicians from L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to former California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cruz Bustamante)." [Creators Syndicate column, 3/29/06]

Savage: "[B]rown supremacists" are "behind these protests." On his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said: "So, it seems to me that there's a certain group of immigrants that's not very happy and they're all Hispanic. I don't see any other racial group out there in the streets, do you? Now, that's very interesting. I'm not allowed to raise the issue or the specter of brown supremacists behind these protests. Don't tell me this is all about compassion for immigrants, because it is not at all only about compassion for immigrants. They are trying to provoke the takeover of the United States of America." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 4/11/06]

Right-wing rhetoric: Pro-immigration marchers should be arrested or deported

Fox's Asman wondered whether marches are a perfect chance to "round up these lawbreakers and ship them out." Guest-hosting Fox News' Your World, David Asman discussed nationwide protests of immigration reform and wondered: "With so many illegals hitting the streets, is this the perfect time to round up these lawbreakers and ship them out?" As Asman spoke, the on-screen text read: "Round 'Em Up?" Later, the text read: "Perfect Chance to Arrest Illegal Immigrants?" [Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/10/06]

Smerconish: "[L]aw enforcement ought to step in" at immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" undocumented immigrants. Guest-hosting MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Philadelphia-based radio host Michael Smerconish suggested that "maybe law enforcement ought to step in" at pro-immigration demonstrations and consider "gathering ... up" undocumented immigrants. Smerconish wondered why there was "zero discussion" of "gathering them up" at the demonstrations, when "[a]ll I keep hearing is how would we ever find them?" [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 4/10/06]

Doocy suggested "round[ing] them up right then, when they're saying, 'Hey, I'm right here.' " On Fox & Friends, syndicated radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller announced that he was "having a big rally here in Chicago" for a "group" that he said was "pro-illegal murder and illegal car thieves." Muller added: "We're just getting together, and we're going to be out on the street. We're for illegal murder and illegal car thievery. So, we just like illegal stuff." Muller added: "I just like illegal murder and illegal car thieves. So, you know, it's illegal, but -- and, in fact, all the people who have done it are going to be out there on the street, and hopefully, none of the cops will come arrest us." Co-host Steve Doocy then said: "Yeah, you wouldn't want to round them up right then, when they're saying, 'Hey, I'm right here.' " [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 4/3/06]

Right-wing rhetoric: Stoking fears over displays of the Mexican flag

Media figures attacked Mexican-flag wavers, but not those waving Irish, Italian, or Israeli flags. Following immigration rallies, media figures criticized demonstrators for carrying Mexican flags, but the same media figures had not complained about people waving other nations' flags, such as Irish flags at St. Patrick's Day events, Italian flags at Columbus Day events, or Israeli flags at Israel Day events. Some commentators even dismissed the comparison. For instance, National Review editor Rich Lowry called the Mexican-flag waving "more ominous" than the St. Patrick's Day or Columbus Day displays.

Savage: "[B]urn the Mexican flag!" On his radio show, Savage urged his listeners to "burn the Mexican flag" in opposition to undocumented immigrants, telling them to "[b]urn a Mexican flag for America, burn a Mexican flag for those who died that you should have a nationality and a sovereignty, go out in the street and show you're a man, burn 10 Mexican flags, if I could recommend it. Put one in the window upside down and tell them to go back where they came from! And if that's a little to xenophobic for you, ask yourself why the xenophobes from Mexico wave their flag in your country." [The Savage Nation, 3/27/06]

Fox News: Waving Mexican flag shows "antagonistic edge," waving U.S. flag "just a cover" and "a ploy to win America's support." Asman cited demonstrators' use of Mexican flags as evidence of "an antagonistic edge" and suggested that the use of U.S. flags and signs written in English at pro-immigration demonstrations was "just a cover" by the demonstrators to conceal their "real intention, which is to keep things as normal among illegal immigrants in the country." Similarly, Neil Cavuto suggested that the pro-immigration demonstrators' U.S. flags were "just a prop" and "just a ploy to win America's support." [Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/10/06; 4/11/06]

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigration is an "invasion"

Buchanan: Illegal immigration is "an invasion of the United States of America" and "[t]he whole world is coming." On MSNBC's Hardball, Buchanan claimed that the influx of undocumented immigrants into the United States is "not immigration" but "an invasion of the United States of America" that is "coming not only from Mexico," but "from the whole world." He reiterated: "The whole world is coming." [MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, 5/15/06]

Savage: "This is an invasion by any other name." Savage said, "We, the people, are being displaced by the people of Mexico. This is an invasion by any other name. Everybody with a brain understands that. Everybody who understands reality understands we are being pushed out of our own country." [The Savage Nation, 3/27/06]

Buchanan: "This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history." In State of Emergency, Buchanan wrote of immigration: "This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history." He also wrote: "We are witnessing how nations perish. We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the deconstruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted." [State of Emergency]

Right-wing rhetoric: U.S., Mexico are in a state of "war"

Tancredo: [W]e are at war with Mexico, in a way." On Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, WorldNetDaily.com columnist Tom Tancredo -- then a Republican congressman from Colorado -- said, "[I]n a way, we are at war with Mexico, in a way. I'll say it in this way: Mexico is aiding and abetting an invasion of this country. They are part of the problem. They are doing what they are -- in fact, they are creating situations along that border using their own military to protect drug trafficking into the United States, pushing their own people into the United States for a variety of reasons. It is an invasion. It is an act of aggression." [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 6/26/06, transcript from the Nexis database]

Beck sidekick Gray: "[W]e are in a war with Mexico right now." Pat Gray, who is now a co-host of Glenn Beck's radio show, appeared on Beck's then-CNN Headline News show and claimed that "we are in a war with Mexico right now." After Beck agreed that "we better wake up soon," Gray responded: "[O]r we're going to wake up dead." [CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, 9/25/06]

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigrants are fundamentally altering American culture or way of life

O'Reilly claimed to have exposed the "hidden agenda" behind the immigrant rights movement: "the browning of America." O'Reilly claimed that during his Fox News show, guest Charles Barron, a New York City councilman, had revealed the "hidden agenda" behind the current immigration debate. O'Reilly told his radio listeners: "[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America." But in the interview, Barron at no point claimed that he and other advocates for immigrant rights are motivated by a desire to force white Americans into the minority -- despite O'Reilly's repeated efforts to provoke such an acknowledgment. [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 4/12/06]

Beck: "[I]llegal immigrants are attacking our culture, and our way of life." On his then-CNN Headline News show, Beck said, "[A]t the very least, illegal immigrants are attacking our culture, and our way of life. They are not melting into our melting pot -- they're here for the cash." He later said, "I mean, we've got all these threats coming in from overseas, but the simplest way is for us to lose the culture of the West is just to do nothing and let illegal immigrants not melt in and take the culture away from us." [Glenn Beck, 8/24/06]

Buchanan: "They're not welcome to come here and insult the symbols of our country, and that's what these outsiders have done." On Scarborough Country, Buchanan said that a Spanish-language version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is "a provocation and an insult" and that immigrants are "not welcome to come here and insult the symbols of our country, and that's what these outsiders have done." Buchanan then said that the Spanish recording is "a good thing in this sense: The American people are awakening to the character of these people." [Scarborough Country, 5/1/06]

Matthews: Republicans "have a right to fear" a "cultural change" that would result in their hometowns "becom[ing] overwhelmingly Mexican." On Hardball, Matthews claimed that House Republicans who had passed a bill that would apparently have criminalized undocumented immigrants, their employers, and those who provide aid to them "have a right to fear" a "cultural change" that would result in their home states and towns "becom[ing] overwhelmingly Mexican." Matthews was responding to a suggestion by guest Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now, that "the Republicans who passed the House bill" are "afraid" that the United States will soon have "a majority Latino population." Matthews later said, "It's not my point view necessarily," before suggesting that "90 percent of this country" agrees with the "viewpoint" that "I didn't move to Mexico; Mexico moved to me, and I'm complaining about it." [Hardball with Chris Matthews, 3/30/06]

O'Reilly: "[Y]ou're on a nice block ... and then the house next to you is turned into an illegal alien Club Med." On his radio show, O'Reilly said:

You've got the folks who don't have emotion invested in it, other than the farmers down and the ranchers down on the border are going -- as the lady just called up, [caller] -- say, look, I got garbage in my -- on my ranch every day. I mean, I'm under siege. They have emotion invested in it. But those of us up here don't.

Unless you live in a town, like Farmingville, Long Island -- we went over this before -- where you bought a house, you spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars, you're on a nice block, your kids are happy, and then the house next to you is turned into an illegal alien Club Med. And this happens all over the country. [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 3/27/06]

Buchanan: "I think what's coming is the complete balkanization of America." On Hardball, Buchanan said, "I think what's coming is the complete balkanization of America, and I'm afraid it's going to be by ethnicity and culture, and language, and every other way. ... And so, then, it's not like the country you and I grew up in, Chris, whereby we were monocultural. We were monocultural." [Hardball, 6/5/06]

O'Reilly wondered whether children of Mexican immigrants in U.S. "have any kind of traditional value system" or are "setting up Acapulco North." On his radio show, O'Reilly wondered whether children of legal and undocumented immigrants from Mexico who are attending school in the United States "have any kind of traditional value system at all, vis-à-vis what America used to be," or whether they are "taking their Mexican values, because most of them are Mexicans, and, you know, basically setting up Acapulco North." [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 8/15/06]

Buchanan: "You're going to have a giant Kosovo in the Southwest, which de facto is going to secede." On Scarborough Country, Buchanan said: "[Y]ou cannot absorb 40 to 60 million more people. You're going to have a giant Kosovo in the Southwest, which de facto is going to secede from this country." [Scarborough Country, 6/5/06]

Buchanan: Immigration will turn U.S. into "a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities." On CNN's The Situation Room, Buchanan warned that "[w]e'll become a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities." He continued: "The problem with the immigration, basically -- let's take Mexico -- is these folks are breaking the law, first. Secondly, they're coming in huge numbers, like no other group before. Third, they're from a contiguous nation. Fourth, 58 percent of Mexicans believe the Southwest belongs to them. Fifth, the Mexican government is pushing them in here, and it's got a political and ideological agenda." [CNN's The Situation Room, 8/28/06]

Right-wing rhetoric: Immigration reform is part of plot to institute "North American Union"

"North American Union" is an absurd conspiracy theory. Right-wing media, including Dobbs, have obsessively warned that elements in the U.S. government are secretly plotting to merge the United States with Mexico and Canada in a "North American Union" similar to the European Union. During the June 21, 2006, edition of his CNN show, Dobbs stated that "the Bush administration is pushing ahead with a plan to create a North American union with Canada and Mexico" and later asked: "Do you think, our question is, maybe somebody should take a vote if we're going to merge Canada, Mexico and the United States as the leaders of the three countries are attempting to do with the security and prosperity partnership? Yes or no. Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com." Dobbs' CNN colleague Suzanne Malveaux later described the North American Union rhetoric as "conspiracy theor[y]." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 6/21/06]

Corsi: "North American Union ... was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy." Jerome Corsi, co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, wrote in a column that "President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy. Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico." [HumanEvents.com, 5/19/06]

WND's Farah linked Bush guest-worker proposal to plan by "one-worlders" to merge U.S., Mexico, Canada. Appearing on a radio show, WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah claimed that the "one-worlders" of the Council on Foreign Relations have a plan to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada by 2010 and suggested that Bush's proposed guest-worker program is part of this plan. Farah said, "Sometimes, the conspiracies are right." [American Family Radio's Today's Issues, 4/4/06]

Buchanan: Vicente Fox's "ultimate goal" is making Mexico and U.S. "basically part of the North American Union." On Lou Dobbs Tonight, Buchanan said, "The government of Mexico is pushing its poor and unemployed into the United States to ease social pressure on itself. Secondly, they get $16 billion in remittances back to Mexico. Third, it is awoken to the idea that it can reannex the American southwest, which it used to hold, linguistically, culturally, ethnically and socially, not militarily by pushing all these people in there and creating a gigantic fifth column in America." Buchanan added: "The ultimate goal of Vicente Fox is the erasure of the border between the United States and Mexico. He has said as much and to make the two basically part of the North American Union in which Mexico will get ... a constant flow of cash from the wealthy USA and La Reconquista is the objective." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, 9/5/06, Nexis transcript]

Other hate speech and outrageous rhetoric

Savage: Undocumented immigrants at protests are "vermin." On his radio show, Savage warned political leaders against "tak[ing] to the streets," saying "to the politicians": "I warn you personally. You will not be re-elected. If you take to the streets with the vermin who are trying to dictate to us how we should run America, even though they're not even entitled to vote or be here, you're going to be thrown out of office. The people will throw you out of office. There are not enough of them to re-elect you. You will be out of a job. You will not have a living. You will be hunting for a job. Maybe, you'll be picking the vegetables." [The Savage Nation, 4/10/06]

Beck: Undocumented immigrants are either "terrorists," outlaws, or people who "can't make a living in their own dirtbag country." On his radio show, Beck claimed that there are three reasons that an undocumented immigrant "comes across the border in the middle of the night": "One, they're terrorists; two, they're escaping the law; or three, they're hungry. They can't make a living in their own dirtbag country." [The Glenn Beck Program, 4/27/06]

O'Reilly: Immigration controversy is "becoming a race war." On his radio show, O'Reilly stated that "you just cannot keep assimilating millions of people in here at the rate they're coming without unintended consequences. And you've got them all day long. So now, it's becoming a race war. That's what it's becoming -- a race war. You see half a million people show up in L.A. and they were waving Mexican flags. And they're saying, 'Hey, we have a right to be here.' No, you don't. If you're illegal, you don't have a right to be here. But they don't see it that way." [The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 3/29/06]

Boortz: "[W]here do we store 11 million Hispanics just waiting to ship 'em back to Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico? ... The Superdome!" Nationally syndicated radio host Neal Boortz said that undocumented immigrants "are not going to be shipped back. I mean ... think about -- Mexico doesn't want 'em back, first of all. Think what happens if we round -- first of all, where do we store 11 million Hispanics just waiting to ship 'em back to Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico? Where do we store 'em? ... The Superdome! Exactly. And the Astrodome in Houston. That's where we'll put 'em. We've got practice." [Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show, 3/27/06]

Cavuto: Are immigration protests "economic terrorism?" On Your World, Cavuto addressed the "Day Without Immigrants" protests, asking, "So is it freedom of expression, or economic terrorism?" At various points throughout the program, the on-screen text echoed Cavuto's question, asking: " 'A Day Without Immigrants'; Economic Terrorism?" [Your World with Neil Cavuto, 5/1/06]



Powered by FeedBurner

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Sotomayor Not an Activist Judge, Study Finds

FROM:



It is too much to ask for the Right Winger promoters of hate, including Republican Congressmen and Senators, to apologize to the Country, to the Hispanic / Latino Community and specially to Judge Sonia Sotomayor for their slanderous accusations?

Maybe it is too much to ask of the REGRESSIVE, however, should we just give them a pass? Or, should stridently denounce them?

Whatever we do should have no bearing on their responsibility to truthfulness and honesty by admitting their wrongdoing.

In any event, we, at the Hispanic / Latino Anti-Defamation Coalition SF, together with other people, groups, organizations, etc. will be expecting one.

In addition, the HLADC-SF Blog will be counting the time elapsed since the day that the Brennan Center for Justice released their report.

– 07/08/09
For Immediate Release

Contact: Jeanine Plant-Chirlin, 212-998-6289
Susan Lehman, 212-998-6318

New comprehensive data shows that Judge Sotomayoris neither an activist nor outlier judge

New York - A new comparative study of 1,194 constitutional cases shows that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is neither an "activist" judge nor an "outlier" jurist among her peers on the Second Circuit. In the run-up to next week's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, the unprecedented depth of this analysis provides hard data to counter the rhetoric of "judicial activism" that has plagued her nomination since May.

The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law looked at each of the constitutional cases decided by the Second Circuit during Sotomayor's decade-long service, analyzed her decisions and compared them to those of her peers.

Measuring judicial activism and deference, the report considers whether a judge's vote was in accordance with his or her colleagues; whether it upheld or overturned a governmental action; and whether it affirmed or reversed the lower court.

"In this confirmation process, we hear a lot about ‘judicial activism.' But we hear too much rhetoric. We decided to look at the facts," says Monica Youn, primary author of the report and attorney in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "When we compared Judge Sotomayor's record against those of her peers, we found that Judge Sotomayor is squarely within the mainstream of the Second Circuit."

The report also examines whether Judge Sotomayor's decision making and that of her colleagues varied in specific cases - involving, for example, civil rights or criminal law - and also whether it mattered if a judge had been appointed by a Republican or Democratic President.

Among the findings:

* 94% of Judge Sotomayor's constitutional decisions have been unanimous.

* She has voted with the majority in 98.2% of constitutional cases.

* Even when she voted to hold a governmental action unconstitutional, the Republican-appointed judges on the Second Circuit voted with Judge Sotomayor in nearly 90% of cases.

* She overruled lower court and agency decisions at a rate that closely conforms to the circuit overall average.

* In the cases in which she voted to overrule a district court or agency, a Republican-appointed judge voted with her over 94% of the time.


"When the predictable rhetoric about ‘activism' began, the Center decided to weigh in on her nomination and this report offers a unique contribution to the debate," says Susan Liss, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center. "We were struck by the degree of unanimity and consensus on a court with nearly equal numbers of Republican and Democratic appointees, and Judge Sotomayor has agreed with her colleagues more than most."

"Reflections on Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court carry particular emotional resonance for the Brennan Center because it is Justice Brennan's seat that is to be filled," says Burt Neuborne, Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties at NYU School of Law and contributor to the report. "This report will help ground and shape the discussion surrounding the Senate Confirmation hearings."

For more information or to set up an interview with Monica Youn, Burt Neuborne, or Susan Liss, please contact Jeanine Plant-Chirlin at 212-998-6289 or jeanine.plant-chirlin@nyu.edu or Susan Lehman at 212-998-6318 or susan.lehman@nyu.edu.

###

Powered by FeedBurner

Saturday, May 30, 2009

"I was wrong about Sotomayor speech"

We have witnessed the barrage of attacks on Judge Sonia Sotomayor by the 'Right-Wing-Nuts' crowd (Sorry, this is the best composite word to describe people of that ilk)

It has become crystal clear that opposition to her nomination is not based on merits, but in destructive feelings of Racism, Xenophobia, Nativism, extremely intransigent Right Wing Ideology, et al.

To see and hear what these people are saying is so appalling and painful when compared to the reality of who Judge Sotomayor is, and what she has said and done, because it is so clear that her statements are being twisted, taken out of context and turned into completely false cartoonish (sic) portrayals of her.

The feelings of dismay surface when contemplating the desired prospect to engage in rational and civilized dialog / debate with people who have hate and intolerance as the core values in their positions, who are not interested, even in a small way, to disagree without being disagreeable, as it is supposed to be done in a Democracy as pertains to a civilized society; it makes you wonder if there is any hope for us to become what many people have dreamed, hoped for and voiced as 'A more perfect union'

Mancow Gets Waterboarded: Admits It's Torture - Mancow Muller of Chicago's Big 89, WLS-AM Mancow & Cassidy show, gets waterboarded to see what it's like and shares it with listeners and viewers. FULL STORY:

*WATERBOARDING 101* ~OLBERMANN

Who knows? But when I find nuggets of honesty in the Right Wing Camp, such as the honestly gritty Erich "Mancow" Muller's admission that 'waterboarding' is torture, he is paying the price for his reversal of opinion due to the 'waterboarding' stunt he performed trying to prove his position, it is being called a 'hoax' by people who refuse to admit the evidence, such as Sean Hannity who is stubbornly hanging to his beliefs on torture, despite his friend's assertion by personal experience to the contrary, who is also cowardly refusing to submit to a 'taste of waterboarding' as he said he'd do so to prove it isn't torture, in spite of people like Sean, I feel that there is a gleam of hope in the horizon because I firmly believe he is part of a minority, albeit malignant, I still take heart in the fact that it is a minority.

And, by the way, how is it that these people are disregarding testimony and statements of experts on interrogation techniques? These professionals have been saying all along that 'waterboarding' is torture, that 'waterboarding' is a misnomer, that it should be called 'drowining' as Mancow referred to it afer his experience, statement he repeated in two appearances on Keith Olbermann's COUNTDOWN - "Changing the Torture Debate" and in "Waterboarding Hoax?".

As I said before, this refusal to admit evidence by these kind of people is both appalling and painful if you believe in fairness and honesty, which people of that ilk obviously don't.

Following a link in a post titled On Racism in the Jim Wallis & Friends blog, God'sPolitics, I read a post by conservative blogger Rod Dreber where another nugget of Right Wing honesty can be found, where an example of how we absolutely must inform ourselves, to the best of our ability, on the facts of the matter in any given issue and have the courage to perform our civic duty to be an 'informed electorate', is displayed, that I decided to post it while applauding Rod's honesty and integrity on this issue.

Why applaud you may ask? After all, isn't that what we all are supposed to do? Well yeah, you are right but I can't help myself from rejoicing at the prospect that there may be more Rod Drebers and Mancows on both sides of the aisle out there.

Even while applauding Rod's finally reading the full speech , "A Latina Judge's Voice" By Sonia Sotomayor,
there are several questions that beg answers, since the full text of the speech was published on May 14th, why did Rod continue to perpetuate the distortions until the 27th? That's almost two weeks before he informed himself of the facts - and why is it that Tom Tancredo and Rush Limbaugh are still distorting and using Judge Sotomayor's words and using to pin degrading false labels on her?
The two possible answers go from the ugly to the horrifying, a) they refuse to fully inform themselves thus betraying their claims of Patriotism or, b) they have read her words and have put them aside in order to continue to be the 'horribly distorted beings' they appear to be on the surface.

Here is Rod's post:


Wednesday May 27, 2009
Categories: Law

The NYT has a link to the entire speech in which she made the comment about the "wise Latina" reaching a "better" verdict than "a white male who hasn't lived that life." I'm still a bit troubled by the remark, but not in any important way. Taken in context, the speech was about how the context in which we were raised affects how judges see the world, and that it's unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Yet -- and this is a key point -- she admits that as a jurist, one is obligated to strive for neutrality. It seems to me that Judge Sotomayor in this speech dwelled on the inescapability of social context in shaping the character of a jurist. That doesn't seem to me to be a controversial point, and I am relieved by this passage:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.

Relieved, because it strikes me as both idealistic and realistic. I am sure Sotomayor and I have very different views on the justice, or injustice, of affirmative action, and I'm quite sure that I won't much care for her rulings as a SCOTUS justice on issues that I care about. But seeing her controversial comment in its larger context makes it look a lot less provocative and troubling. As some of you have noted in comments.

UPDATE: In fact, come to think of it, I can remember a couple of occasions at The Dallas Morning News, sitting in on editorial board meetings with judicial candidates, in which I was favorably impressed by aspiring judges who talked about, well, empathy. One candidate who comes to mind had grown up poor and a racial minority, but had worked her way out of deprivation and built a strong legal career. She came to us as a sitting judge who sought higher office. We asked her to talk about a case or cases that would give us an idea of the perspective she would bring to the bench. She spoke about how she came to learn early in her bench career that the decisions she made affected not just the person at trial, but his family. She spoke about how it gave her a greater appreciation for the dimensions of the law, and what constitutes justice -- to be specific, that justice is not something mechanical, a result that can be obtained by feeding facts into a program, and having a computer spit out the "correct" answer. Rather, it requires wisdom, and its application. As I recall that meeting, the judge's answer struck me as wise about human nature, and how the law provides a framework for justice, but doesn't guarantee it -- and how sometimes, subjective factors necessarily influence a judge's decision about the right outcome in a particular case.

Also, I recall a black judge who came in for a candidate forum once. We put the same question to him. He talked about his hardscrabble background, and how he always tried to keep squarely in front of him when he had a black male defendant, "There but for the grace of God go I." His point was clearly not to assert that he had a different standard for black men who come into his court, but rather that his empathy (that word again) helped keep him humble in his approach to decision-making. If I remember correctly (this was a couple of years ago), I came out of that meeting thinking that I would feel pretty good about going before this judge's court as a defendant, because I could trust that judge to put himself imaginatively in my place, and try to see things as I did. That's not to say he would rule in my favor, but that he is at least aware that justice is not the same thing as rote application of the law; i.e., that while justice must never be entirely, or even mostly, subjective, it nevertheless requires taking into account particulars of the case. This is called wisdom. This is called judgment.


Powered by FeedBurner

Friday, March 6, 2009

Hate Groups' Rise Fueled by Nativism

Sent by Porfirio Q.

Source: CHANGE.ORG



Published March 05, 2009 @ 04:53AM PST


Dee at Immigration Talk with a Mexican American has been blogging on the murder last week of two young Chileans studying in the U.S. The killings were apparently motivated by nativism and carried out by an unbalanced man whose neighbor said he had asked her if she was "ready for the revolution to begin and if [she] had any immigrants in [her] house to get them out." Dee's latest update takes a look at how Dannie Baker's hatred of foreigners filled an otherwise empty life, and how he may have believed the murders were his way of contributing to society by ridding it of foreign influence.

As regular readers of this blog will know, hate crimes against Latin@s have become a regular feature of life in the U.S., as people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and Tom Tancredo build their careers on inspiring fear of immigrants.

Monday, February 2, 2009

New York Times: Nativism in U.S. is alive and flourishing.

SOURCE:



EDITORIAL - The Nativists Are Restless

From: Mark R Day day <mday45@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:45 AM

Published: January 31, 2009

The relentlessly harsh Republican campaign against immigrants has always hidden a streak of racialist extremism. Now after several high-water years, the Republican tide has gone out, leaving exposed the nativism of fringe right-wingers clinging to what they hope will be a wedge issue.

Last week at the National Press Club in Washington, a group seeking to speak for the future of the Republican Party declared that its November defeats in Congressional races stemmed not from having been too hard on foreigners, but too soft.

The group, the American Cause, released a report arguing that anti-immigration absolutism was still the solution for the party’s deep electoral woes, actual voting results notwithstanding. Rather than “pander to pro-amnesty Hispanics and swing voters,” as President Bush and Karl Rove once tried to do, the report’s author, Marcus Epstein, urged Republicans to double down on their efforts to run on schemes to seal the border and drive immigrants out.

This is nonsense, of course. For years Americans have rejected the cruelty of enforcement-only regimes and Latino-bashing, in opinion surveys and at the polls. In House and Senate races in 2008 and 2006, “anti- amnesty” hard-liners consistently lost to candidates who proposed comprehensive reform solutions. The wedge did not work for single-issue xenophobes like Lou Barletta, the mayor of Hazleton, Pa., or the former Arizona Congressman J. D. Hayworth. Nor did it help any of the Republican presidential candidates trying to defeat the party’s best-known voice of immigration moderation, John McCain, for the nomination.

Americans want immigration solved, and they realize that mass deportations will not do that. When you add the unprecedented engagement of growing numbers of Latino voters in 2008, it becomes clear that the nativist path is the path to permanent political irrelevance. Unless you can find a way to get rid of all the Latinos.

What was perhaps more notable than the report itself was the team that delivered it. It included Bay Buchanan, former adviser to Representative Tom Tancredo and sister of Pat, who founded the American Cause and wrote “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.” She was joined by James Pinkerton, an essayist and Fox News contributor who, as an aide to the first President Bush, took credit for the racist Willie Horton ads run against Michael Dukakis.

So far, so foul. But even more telling was the presence of Peter Brimelow, a former Forbes editor and founder of Vdare.com, an extremist anti-immigration Web site. It is named for Virginia Dare, the first white baby born in the English colonies, which tells you most of what you need to know. The site is worth a visit. There you can read Mr. Brimelow’s and Mr. Buchanan’s musings about racial dilution and the perils facing white people, and gems like this from Mr. Epstein:

“Diversity can be good in moderation — if what is being brought in is desirable. Most Americans don’t mind a little ethnic food, some Asian math whizzes, or a few Mariachi dancers — as long as these trends do not overwhelm the dominant culture.”

It is easy to mock white-supremacist views as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out. The country has, of course, made considerable progress since the days of Know-Nothings and the Klan. But racism has a nasty habit of never going away, no matter how much we may want it to, and thus the perpetual need for vigilance.

It is all around us. Much was made of the Republican mailing of the parody song “Barack the Magic Negro,” but the same notorious CD included “The Star Spanglish Banner,” a puerile bit of Latino-baiting. It is easily found on YouTube. Google the words “Bill O’Reilly” and “white, Christian male power structure” for another YouTube taste of the Fox News host assailing the immigration views of “the far left” (including The Times) as racially traitorous.

And it takes only a cursory look at a worsening economic climate and grim national mood to realize that history is always threatening to repeat itself. Last week on Long Island, the authorities in Suffolk County unsealed new indictments against a group of teenage boys accused in a murderous attack against an Ecuadorean immigrant, Marcelo Lucero. Since that crime last year, many more victims have come forward with stories of assaults in or near the same town, Patchogue. The police in that suburb seem to have made a habit of ignoring a long and escalating trail of attacks against immigrant men, until the hatred rose up and spilled over one night, fatally.

More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on February 1, 2009, on page WK8 of the New York edition.

Powered by FeedBurner