So now the White House is back tracking.. she didn't really MEAN to sound racist... sputter sputter...  It's very simple, she is RACIST through and through and thinks Latina women would make better judgments on the Supreme Court than a white male.

Just now on CNN, they hand picked three "citizens" to get their opinion - one Asian with broken Engrish, one Latina woman and one Black woman. Yeah that represents Americans. Where was the white person since we are - gee at least 60% of the population of the United States? There seem to be many on the left who would like to ignore that and pretend that Blacks and Hispanics are in the majority. Even if those two groups got together, they would STILL not be in the majority - YET. Latest tallies for the US are in 2008 - White 242 million, Black 39 million, Hispanic 49 million, Asian - 13 million. But through multicultural STUPIDITY we have allowed a FLOOD of people from other countries - legal and illegal, to dilute our culture and attack it. And Sonia Sotomayor IS PART OF THAT ATTACK FRONT.

Furthermore, the Black woman said she was all about getting "more diversity" onto the Supreme Court. Really? She said well she hears that Sotomayor agrees with her on a woman's right to choose so that's what she considers more diversity. Really? Isn't that really just that you want more people on the Supreme Court who think like you? If you REALLY wanted diversity and "balance" you would want some who agree with you and some who don't, not a stacked Supreme Court on your side of an argument. She went on to say that the "whiteness" of the Supreme Court judges belied their own prejudice whether they wanted to admit it or not. So she is saying - we know you are racist just because you are white???  Umm.. racism is not just for whites only as much as you would like to believe that crap.

But yet, liberals PERSIST in the notion that Sotomayor's nomination is a "quest for diversity" as if diversity means better judgments. If diversity is TRULY what they seek then we need to enlarge the Supreme Court so that it includes both genders for EVERY RACE. Of course that would be silly because that makes it look like judges on the Supreme Court make judgments through a RACE FILTER. That is CLEARLY not the case now but putting Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court WOULD traverse that slippery slope.

I also heard that Senator Lindsay "give em amnesty" Graham came out with a statement demanding that Sotomayor "apologize" for the statement and he said "she is not a racist but she should apologize". Oh really? So if a potential Supreme Court nominee said that they think Blacks should still be kept as slaves, but then they apologize, it will make it all ok for them to serve on the Supreme Court?  Is he going to make her chant "cross my heart and hope to die that I did not mean that in a racist way"?  If she apologizes, THEN WHAT?  That just makes her a LIAR TOO. What I bet she WILL say is that she didn't mean anyone non-Latino to hear her statement. It was one of those "inside jokes" among their own kind and wasn't meant for the ears of her targets.

So let's take a look at some recent decisions by this "white male dominated" Supreme Court shall we?  This is based on the supposition that the Supreme Court needs more "Latina voices".

FLORES-FIGUEROA v. UNITED STATES

The mostly white male Supreme Court decides that illegal aliens who use false identity - if they did not "knowingly" use someone else's identity - ie they thought it was a fake identity - then they are not guilty of identity theft.

Really? So if I make up a SSN and use it and get caught and then say - well I just picked a number out of the air - how could I have known it belonged to someone - then they will not prosecute me for identity theft??  GET REAL. How was this decision biased against minorities?  I'll tell you how - IT'S NOT. It is BIASED against American Citizens who are the victim of identity theft EVERY DAY BY ILLEGAL ALIENS AND THEIR SUPPLIERS.  Gee I wonder how Sonia Sotomayor would have ruled on this.

NEGUSIE v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL

This case was about an Eritrerean native who SAYS he was FORCED to be a prison guard where his fellow Eritrean citizens were being tortured. He did that for FOUR YEARS and then smuggled himself into the US as a refugee.  A prior decision by the Fedorenko court regarding those who were forced to participate in the Holocaust could be come to the US as refugees - was used as the measuring bar.  The court was troubled by the fact that he helped persecute and torture others but he says he was FORCED to do so.  So they actually decided to let this guy be a refugee and essentially said that being this kind of "forced" prison guard is not the same as being a Nazi prison guard.. huh?  How is that biased against minorities Ms Sotomayor? Hmmm? Seems like they gave this guy a BREAK and dissed Holocaust victims in the process.

I could go ON AND ON with examples of decisions that are OBVIOUSLY NOT BIASED THROUGH A RICH WHITE MAN'S EXPERIENCE so let's just dispose of the entire notion that more minorities are needed on the Supreme Court and INSTEAD LET'S LOOK AT THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A NOMINEE. If that nominee exposes RACIST TENDENCIES as Sonia Sotomayor has done - she should be ELIMINATED FROM THE NOMINATIONS.

I find it ironic that Sotomayor was part of the inane decision to further deny rights, by the NY Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the New Haven firefighters - who were DENIED PROMOTIONS BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE EVEN THOUGH THEY DID BETTER ON THE EXAMS.  So it's ok to discriminate against white males eh Sotomayor?  White males better wake the hell up and do something before they are marched off to prison camps with Latino and Black prison guards giving them their marching orders.