Archive for Current Events
Rush Limbaugh is wrong to call Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “racist” for her comment from 2001.
Viewed objectively, and in context, Judge Sotomayor’s comment is aspirational: it is something she hopes would be true, something that she aspires to–as an ideal she wants to always arrive at the best possible conclusion–not a bad goal for any judicial member wouldn’t you say?
Here is the quote in context:
Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
What is missing in the discussion about Sotomayor’s statement is recognition of the universal truth that no two people will reach the same conclusion in deciding every case, even if they are of the same race or gender. For example, how many U.S. Supreme Court decisions are decided 5-4, 6-3, 7-2, or 8-1? My point is this: even the best legal minds in our nation often don’t see the same case the same way. Yet, no one accuses them of being racist or bigoted for having differing opinions.
It is no surprise that Judge Sotomayor may arrive at a different conclusion than the other judges on the bench.
Have we learned nothing from Justice Souter about the fallacy of trying to “pigeon-hole” a particular person?
Judge Sotomayor is absolutely right to question former Justice O’Connor’s statement. Here’s why: If Justice O’Connor’s premise is true then all Supreme Court cases would be decided unanimously, but we know they are not. What, then, are we to conclude when the Supreme Court decides a case in any way other than unanimously? Let’s say the decision was 5-4 in a hypothetical U.S. Supreme Court case. Are we to conclude there were 5 wise people on the court and 4 foolish or unwise persons on the same court–or vice versa?
Of course not.
We all know that to think differently from another, or arrive at a different conclusion than someone else, does not imply the other is unwise, stupid, inferior, racist, non-racist, superior, or anything else. They simply see it differently.
It is not racist to be different, Rush.
It is not racist to think differently, Rush.
If it were, Rush Limbaugh would be guilty of the very charge he has leveled against Judge Sotomayor.
Did you know there are two Rush Limbaughs?
- There’s the public persona who comes off as
- and pompous.
- Then, there is the private Rush Limbaugh who really is
- and generous.
- and pompous.
- and generous.
With all the tons of information on the world-wide-web, it would be easy to overlook an eye-opening article that gives a factual sneak peek inside the phenomenon called Rush Limbaugh.
I’m talking about Ross Bonander’s Rush Limbaugh: 5 Things You Didn’t Know
This article is excellent because:
- It is entertaining
- It is educational
- It is objective
- It is informative
All things we like here at Rush-Matters.com. Happy reading!
BONUS FEATURE: Video of Rush with Barbara Walters aired December 4, 2008
UPDATE: For a different, and earlier, behind-the-scenes look at Rush Limbaugh click here.
Do you think Rush is right? Why or why not?
To read a viewpoint opposing Rush’s go here.
For yet another opposing viewpoint read here.
All of us at Rush-Matters.com applaud Rush Limbaugh for caring about animals and animal rights. Kudos to you, Rush, for doing this.
We welcome your comments on this PSA.
If you think Hitchens was faking, take a look here.
This is no joke. Man up, Limbaugh.
Michael Savage unleashed a broadside salvo directly against Rush Limbaugh today on his radio show. Said Savage:
And yet here in America, I’ve had some people come to my aid. They see the bigger picture. They’re not like [Bill] O’Reilly; they’re not like Limbaugh, who’s the biggest disappointment of all. Limbaugh has turned out to be the biggest phony of all of them, all of them. Amongst all of them, he is the biggest fraud. Rush Limbaugh is a fraud. When he was accused of the drug usage, I supported him. But that man is a one-way street. It’s all about him. He’s in it for nobody but himself.
Close political adviser to Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, John Weaver, is reported to have said:
“If it’s 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we’re headed for a blowout.”
Do you agree or disagree?