<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: WALKER: Judging a Justice &#8211; Sotomayor and Racism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thepoliticizer.com/2009/07/14/judging-a-justice-sotomayor-and-racism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thepoliticizer.com/2009/07/14/judging-a-justice-sotomayor-and-racism/</link>
	<description>A fresh perspective on politics and society from the internet generation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 04:33:33 -0300</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: TBird</title>
		<link>http://thepoliticizer.com/2009/07/14/judging-a-justice-sotomayor-and-racism/comment-page-1/#comment-1081</link>
		<dc:creator>TBird</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:13:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thepoliticizer.com/?p=357#comment-1081</guid>
		<description>She still stands by her racism and sexism...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-zg0FduCRE</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>She still stands by her racism and sexism&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-zg0FduCRE" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-zg0FduCRE</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TBird</title>
		<link>http://thepoliticizer.com/2009/07/14/judging-a-justice-sotomayor-and-racism/comment-page-1/#comment-1006</link>
		<dc:creator>TBird</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:47:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thepoliticizer.com/?p=357#comment-1006</guid>
		<description>Seems like the Senate Dems are easily glossing over her issues of racism and sexism...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WLGvevLE6c

Not that there was any doubt with the super majorities of Dems in both houses whether she would get confirmed or not. Partisan politics at its best.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems like the Senate Dems are easily glossing over her issues of racism and sexism&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WLGvevLE6c" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WLGvevLE6c</a></p>
<p>Not that there was any doubt with the super majorities of Dems in both houses whether she would get confirmed or not. Partisan politics at its best.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TBird</title>
		<link>http://thepoliticizer.com/2009/07/14/judging-a-justice-sotomayor-and-racism/comment-page-1/#comment-767</link>
		<dc:creator>TBird</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thepoliticizer.com/?p=357#comment-767</guid>
		<description>Alix! What are you talking about?! Of course the Civil Rights Act only applies to non-whites! DUH!

Title II Section 201 Sub-section (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:  &quot;All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.&quot; 

Isn&#039;t it completely obvious that &quot;without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race&quot; means EXCEPT if you are white?... It&#039;s obviously what Congress meant!

Satire aside, Alix I completely agree with your analysis and the question at the end should definitely be asked.

Conor, I have been pondering the same thing, how did such a prejudiced person even get nominated for the highest court in our great nation? 

Will this &quot;wise latina&quot; be able to uphold equal protection under the law? I think not...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alix! What are you talking about?! Of course the Civil Rights Act only applies to non-whites! DUH!</p>
<p>Title II Section 201 Sub-section (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:  &#8220;All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.&#8221; </p>
<p>Isn&#8217;t it completely obvious that &#8220;without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race&#8221; means EXCEPT if you are white?&#8230; It&#8217;s obviously what Congress meant!</p>
<p>Satire aside, Alix I completely agree with your analysis and the question at the end should definitely be asked.</p>
<p>Conor, I have been pondering the same thing, how did such a prejudiced person even get nominated for the highest court in our great nation? </p>
<p>Will this &#8220;wise latina&#8221; be able to uphold equal protection under the law? I think not&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Conor Rogers</title>
		<link>http://thepoliticizer.com/2009/07/14/judging-a-justice-sotomayor-and-racism/comment-page-1/#comment-714</link>
		<dc:creator>Conor Rogers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thepoliticizer.com/?p=357#comment-714</guid>
		<description>Alix,

Great post - I for one can&#039;t believe that Sotomayor is even being considered for a court that just weeks ago totally rejected her constitutional logic. 

Her statements this morning regarding the 2nd amendment (chiefly that it doesn&#039;t not apply to state legislation) is sure to put pressure on the blue-dog Dems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alix,</p>
<p>Great post &#8211; I for one can&#8217;t believe that Sotomayor is even being considered for a court that just weeks ago totally rejected her constitutional logic. </p>
<p>Her statements this morning regarding the 2nd amendment (chiefly that it doesn&#8217;t not apply to state legislation) is sure to put pressure on the blue-dog Dems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
