Empathetic Hate Speech

It's Obama's bed. He made it. He's the one who wants emotion to be the criteria used by his judges in making decisions rather than the constitution. He expects that because she's Hispanic, the GOP will not dare attack his Supreme Court nominee. We'll see.
Republicans are poised to oppose an accomplished Latina federal judge for the Supreme Court, further alienating Hispanic voters the GOP has recently driven away in droves. President Barack Obama’s choice of Judge Sotomayor was not cynical; she exactly mirrors his judicial philosophy of “empathy.”
Who exactly does Sotomayor empathize with? Her comments indicate that her sympathies are guided by bias.
Yet Republicans must still enter the trap — with open eyes and no expectation of gain — to maintain a simple principle: A court should be a place where all are judged impartially, as individuals. The Obama/Sotomayor doctrine of empathy challenges this long-established belief. It is not a minor matter.
Obama wants a biased court - a court that makes its judgements with an affirmative action approach.
As a young senator involved in judicial nomination debates, Obama showed no deference to presidential choices. Instead, he developed a theory that Supreme Court justices should favor socially unfavored groups.
Obama's priority of empathy converges explosively with Sotomayors preference for Latino Women over White Men.
By Obama’s empathy standard, Sotomayor is a natural choice. She has argued: “The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”
This is not yet a court debate however - it's a public opinion debate over sensibilities. Most reasonable people find Sotomayor's comments offensive. And liberals are offended at the reaction of conservatives - they're horrified that people like Newt Gingrich would dare call her a racist.
...with conservatives explicitly calling Sotomayor a "racist" based on manufactured evidence, the media can't even be bothered to point out that they are distorting her comments. Instead, the conservative complaints get taken seriously, as though they are a reasonable and fair interpretation of what Sotomayor said.
Hasn't the left used the accusation of racism with recklessness in order to hide from honest debate? Those of us who argue, for example, that U.S. immigration laws should be enforced are routinely called racist - the hope being that we can be demonized out of the conversation so that our arguments don't get heard. In so doing, the left is making the accusation without one spec of evidence to support it.
"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," she said.
Isn't the problem with Sotomayor's comment that it violates the liberal guidelines for proper behavior in the modern world? Everyone knows that in the PC rulebook, the mere hint that someone's competence could be connected in any way to their race or ethnicity falls under a zero tolerance offense - you are automatically a racist for having gone there. No charges, no evidence presented, no arguments. Racist. Remember that Larry Summers, the man in charge of economic policy in the Obama administration, was run out of his post as president of Harvard University because, in a forum of intellectual investigation, he wondered whether there might be some innate difference between men and women that could explain why so few women go into the sciences?
What people forget is that in accounting for violations of PC rules, liberals keep two sets of books. Remember how liberals didn't mind that Barack Obama's closest personal ally makes his living stomping his heel into the nerve of race relations in America.
Of course, this isn't really about racism or PC rules, it's about manipulating media storylines in order to win the fight. Is the storyline starting to shift?
President Barack Obama on Friday personally sought to deflect criticism of Sonia Sotomayor, who finds herself under intensifying scrutiny for saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge. "I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that.
Obama wasn't alone in trying to correct the record.
Obama's top spokesman, Robert Gibbs, told reporters about Sotomayor: "I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor."
On the day of her appointment, Sotomayor's confirmation was perceived by many as a slam dunk. Now, the defense may gaining strength as the storyline starts to shift, and there is a window starting to open that may allow the American to see just how dangerous the President is. In the context of his presidency, she adds fuel to the fire.
"I think that when she's appearing before the Senate committee, in her confirmation process, I think all this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is," Obama said in the broadcast interview, clearly aware of how ethnicity and gender issues are taking hold in the debate.
What is the spewing, exactly?
Gibbs, however, said he did not hear that from Sotomayor directly. He said he learned it from people who had talked to her, and he did not identify who those people were. Sotomayor herself has made no public statements since her nomination became official Tuesday and was not reachable for comment.
So it's the White House that is spewing - making up its own opinions and attributing them to her - as to what the judge was thinking when she made her comments. Comments that, if made by a white person, they would call racist.