« | »

Sotomayor Began Race Agitating At 19

From her cheerleaders at the Washington Post:

Sotomayor Was a Passionate but Civil Activist

By Amy Goldstein and Alec MacGillis
Monday, June 1, 2009

Around Christmas of 1973, a fellow sophomore approached Frank Reed, a leader of Princeton University’s Chicano Caucus, to hand him a formal complaint she had typed up and to ask him to support it.

Sonia Sotomayor was head of the other Latino organization on campus, Acción Puertorriqueña. And after a history of fruitless student talks with Princeton administrators over the lack of Hispanic professors and staff, Sotomayor believed the time had come to lodge a grievance with the federal government over the university’s hiring practices.

The written complaint, filed that April with what was then the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, accused Princeton of an "institutional pattern of discrimination" in hiring "Puerto Rican and Chicano" faculty, as well as in admitting students from those ethnic groups. The strategy, Reed recalled, was "different than anything that had ever been done" by the two student organizations. Neither rowdy nor meek, it reached boldly for outside legal pressure on the university to diversify the campus.

Such a strategy would become vintage Sotomayor: pressing her causes forcefully, while maintaining a civil dialogue. In the nearly two decades between when she came of age and when she joined the federal judiciary, the woman President Obama has now nominated to the Supreme Court demonstrated a passionate engagement at the intersection of ethnic heritage and social justice. She advocated — publicly, aggressively — for inclusion and expanded civil rights, yet always worked within the framework of traditional levers and institutions.

As a Yale law student after she graduated from Princeton, Sotomayor protested to a dean over questions that she contended were discriminatory posed by a Washington law firm at a recruiting dinner. Soon after taking her first job, she joined the board of a Puerto Rican advocacy group that fought for voting, employment and housing rights. She eventually became a board member, too, of a New York nonprofit group that works to improve care for pregnant women and a state agency that promoted homeownership for poor people

The top priority of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund when she joined its board, for instance, was challenging what it regarded as racial gerrymandering in legislative districts, an issue the Supreme Court is now weighing as it considers a central element of the Voting Rights Act. The fund also fought to reform the hiring process in New York’s police and fire departments, raising some of the questions now under review by the Supreme Court in an employment discrimination case involving the New Haven fire department — a case that Sotomayor ruled on as an appeals judge. And as a board member of the New York Mortgage Agency, Sotomayor helped promote home loans for low-income minorities, an issue central to the recent housing boom and bust.

In Sotomayor’s view, public service "means much more than who writes your paycheck," said Juan Cartagena, a staff lawyer at the defense fund during her affiliation there. "The social justice thing was very natural to her." …

When she arrived at Princeton in the fall of 1972, questions about the racial, ethnic and gender makeup of student bodies and faculties coursed through the Ivy League. Sotomayor’s class was just the third at Princeton that included women. And while the university had begun to expand slowly its small number of Hispanic students, there was not a single full-time Latino professor, nor any class on Latin America. Having been raised in the South Bronx by a widowed mother who worked two jobs to pay her tuition to a Catholic high school, Sotomayor felt estranged from many of her white classmates from privileged backgrounds, friends from her undergraduate years recall.

She found a social world and political causes among students like herself, friends from then recall. She quickly became a leader of the fledgling organization of Puerto Rican students, and she concluded that it would be difficult for Princeton to recruit Latino students without Latinos on its faculty or staff, said Joseph Schubert, another Hispanic undergraduate who was part of the debate and then covered it for the Daily Princetonian, the student newspaper…

According to campus news accounts of the time, Princeton had an affirmative-action plan, but the students alleged that it did not contain hiring goals or timetables for Hispanics, as it did for members of other minority groups. In the end, Reed and others recalled, the school began to hire Latino faculty and increase admissions of Latino students before the federal government ruled on the students’ complaint. Even in prodding the university, "she was always respectful of the institution," recalled William G. Bowen, then Princeton’s president. "Her participation in all these discussions was . . . never acrimonious."

She pushed for curricular change, too. The fall of her junior year, she was "one of the central people," recalled Winn, now a historian at Tufts University, who persuaded him to create a seminar on Puerto Rican history and politics.

Her sense of justice transcended matters of ethnicity. In the winter of her senior year, she was among the three dozen students and faculty members who signed a letter, published in the student newspaper, protesting the ransacking of the dorm room of two gay students. "It is precisely such extreme situations," the letter said, "which measure the willingness of this community to encourage bold new ideas by tolerating dissent."

Sotomayor’s engagement with her heritage broadened into deeper policy concerns at Yale Law School, where she made the law review with an analysis of murky constitutional issues surrounding potential Puerto Rican statehood and seabed rights. But she retained her feisty edge, protesting in the fall of 1978 when, at a recruiting dinner in New Haven, a lawyer from the Washington firm Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge asked her questions that, as she saw it, crossed the line into discrimination.

She challenged lawyer Martin Krall during her formal interview the next day and refused his invitation to come to Washington for a second interview. And she went to Assistant Dean James Zirkle to file a complaint about the questions, which, according to a law school tribunal, included "Would I have been admitted to the law school if I were not a Puerto Rican?"

Sotomayor was "matter-of-fact" about the complaint, Zirkle, now a lawyer for the CIA, recalled in an interview. "I wouldn’t say she was upset emotionally — but she certainly did not like what happened." Zirkle said he never questioned Sotomayor’s account: "She’s a very credible person." He reported the complaint to the firm’s senior partners, who eventually apologized, stating that the questions had been "insensitive and regrettable."

The episode made waves. The Washington Post ran an article about the apology, and several student groups rallied to Sotomayor’s defense. But law school classmate Michael Album, who interned at the same firm as Sotomayor, recalled that Sotomayor was not interested in seeking publicity. She "was not strident by any means," he said. "She was always well balanced."

Law degree in hand, Sotomayor went to work for the Manhattan district attorney but soon found a new outlet for engagement: the Puerto Rican defense fund

Founded in 1972, and backed by the Ford Foundation, among others, the Puerto Rican defense fund already had achieved victories in promoting bilingual education in the New York schools. Around the time Sotomayor joined, it was on the verge of its biggest coup, a challenge of City Council district lines that it argued were racially gerrymandered. The organization won an injunction forcing a last-minute postponement of the 1981 municipal elections, then a redrawing of the lines.

The organization went on to file successful discrimination challenges against the New York police, fire and sanitation departments; public housing and co-op complexes; and school districts that overused special-education designations for Hispanic pupils

Showing a particular interest in the area of promoting younger Puerto Rican lawyers and law students, she stayed on the board for a dozen years, throughout her time in private practice, up until her nomination to the bench…

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, another co-founder of the organization, noted that many of the issues the fund battled persist today. "They’re issues of social justice that haven’t gone away," he said.

In the late 1980s, Sotomayor broadened her civic involvement, joining the boards of the Maternity Center Association (now called Childbirth Connection), the New York Campaign Finance Board, and the New York Mortgage Agency, which provided discounted mortgage rates and closing-cost help for first-time homeowners in blighted areas and mortgage insurance for low-income housing developments.

Even after judicial rules required her to end her board memberships, Sotomayor has remained active in a less formal capacity: giving frequent speeches, appearing at Puerto Rican Bar Association events, serving as a moot court judge at Yale Law. Between 1999 and 2003, she was a member of the National Council of La Raza [The Race], the large nationwide Hispanic advocacy group at the heart of the immigration debate

Testifying before the Senate in 1992 at her first confirmation hearing, Sotomayor told Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) that she understood being a judge meant she would need to give up most of her civic roles — a shift that she hinted she would rue. "I as an individual believe that those of us who have opportunities in this life must give them back to those who have less," she said.

So the Washington Post thinks that we are supposed to be comforted by the fact that Ms. Sotoymayor already had a chip on her shoulder when she was 19?

Somehow that she had typed up her list of race-baiting demands is supposed to prove her civility. Granted, we suppose it does show a little more restraint than writing them in blood.

And after a history of fruitless student talks with Princeton administrators over the lack of Hispanic professors and staff, Sotomayor believed the time had come to lodge a grievance with the federal government over the university’s hiring practices.

Sophomore Sotomayor had been at Princeton for less than a year and a half, and she already considered herself in a position to be questioning their practices and making demands.

Yes, this is the mark of a mild-mannered person. And certainly the sign of a judicial temperament.

And there is no way that she has made a career out of racial identity politics.

Anyone who would even suggest such a thing must be a lunatic who needs to be silenced.

Sotomayor’s engagement with her heritage…

It seems to be clear that it is more than an “engagement.”

She’s married to it.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, June 1st, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

41 Responses to “Sotomayor Began Race Agitating At 19”

  1. joeblough says:

    This crap must be the rich experience we keep hearing about.

    • Aramis says:

      Just what we need, another arrogant leftie telling us how to live. What could possibly go wrong?

  2. proreason says:

    Maybe we are too hard on the racist Red Sonia.

    Everybody deserves to be able to make a living, right?

    And race-baiting is this woman’s job. Just like Rev Sharpton and Obamy.

    Where would she be if she couldn’t take advantage of racism? Just another blowhard lawyer chasing ambulances and hustling for victims.

    So cut her some slack. She’s living the un-American dream.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      With role models such as the likes of Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, etc. and possibly the bully pulpit…She may be the “supreme” race-baiter.

  3. GL0120 says:

    She’ll make certain that the Supreme Court is truly supreme; I can easily picture her convicting companies and people of discrimination without them even being charged!
    I’m sure she pictures herself as being on Mt. Olympus, hurling lightning bolts down on those she finds offensive.

  4. njyankee says:

    I’ve been reading S&L for about a year now and this is the first time I’ve ever really felt compelled to write a comment. I’m a first-generation American. Both my parents and all my grandparents were born in Cuba (just to give you a little background on me). And everything about Sotomayor has just infuriated me on a more personal level because she keeps using the “hispanic” shield to do whatever she wants.

    I got this in an email and it pretty much sums up the way I, and anyone of Cuban descent, feel:

    While I detest the terms “Latino” and
    “Hispanic”, I hadn’t covered this subject
    before for fear of opening up a great big can of worms.
    However, I now feel I have to clarify a few things regarding
    the recent protests by “Latinos” or
    “Hispanics” throughout the US.

    First, there is no such thing as a “Latino” race.
    There is no such thing as a “Hispanic” race. Both
    terms are contrived and used solely for census purposes.
    There is no such country as “latinolandia” and
    Hispaniola is technically half of an island in the

    Second, I am not, nor will I ever be, part of “La
    Raza.” Nor do I agree Or support their current
    protests. Some of you may, and that is fine, but I do not.

    Third, and most importantly: I have never and will never,
    despite having many issues with the government of the United
    States throughout the years, burn a flag of the United
    States of America. I am Cuban by birth, American by the
    grace of God, and a darned proud, dignified, thankful and
    respectful American.

    Fourth, while I certainly sympathize with the Mexican
    people for their country’s economic and social troubles,
    I refuse to be lumped together as a class or a race simply
    because we speak a similar language. If Mexicans and
    Mexican-Americans had wanted my support, then they should
    have supported the cause of a free and democratic Cuba,
    instead of the majority and at times the Mexican government
    having sided with and legitimizing the government of Fidel

    Fifth, there is a difference between a Cuban living in the
    United States and a Mexican living in the United States.
    One is a political refugee and the other is an immigrant,
    respectively. When Mexicans are being oppressed and have
    their basic human rights trampled on by their government as
    Cubans do, then perhaps my opinion will change; until then,
    the aforementioned difference stands.

    Mexicans and Mexican-Americans may very well have
    legitimate gripes with the government of the US , but as La
    Raza, the flags they are burning and flying up side down
    below the Mexican flag do not speak for me.

    I am not Mexican; I am not Latino; I am not Hispanic.

    I am an American of Cuban descent, and damned proud of it.

    Sorry for such a long post, I don’t expect this to be a habit. But I can’t let anyone think for even one minute that she speaks for all the “”hispanics” in this country.

    • Helena says:

      I know several Cubans who now live in the US and they are, in addition to being delightful people, without exception glad and grateful to be here. One of them left behind his beloved father, and his heart is still breaking that he never saw him again before he died. He has family still in Cuba and goes through all sorts of rigmarole to send money and drugs (the “finest medical care in the world!” doesn’t seem to have helped his diabetic brother). As you say, the difference is that Cubans have lived and still live under an oppressive regime and know from bitter experience the danger of the government having too much power.

    • proreason says:

      hear hear!!

    • Petronius says:

      “One is a political refugee and the other is an immigrant.”

      Well said. There is a big difference between then and now, between those who came to join those already here, and those who come to take over. The endless political speeches about “hope and change”––Cubans have heard it all before. These are the ones who truly love freedom––American refugees from communism, from Cuba, Ukraine, Viet-Nam, Hungry, Poland, etc. They understand that America is the last bastion of freedom. If anyone ever pulls America out of the leftist muck and puts it back onto the path of freedom it will be one of these. Hermanos al Rescate!

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Good Post, njyankee!!

      Welcome to the frill and next time, don’t wait so long to opine. One and all are invited to wade in!!

    • Steve says:

      “One is a political refugee and the other is an immigrant.”

      And of course Ms. Sotomayor is neither. She was born in the US as a citizen.

      Indeed, both of her parents were also natural born US citizens, having been born in Puerto Rico.

    • njyankee says:

      “natural born US citizens, having been born in Puerto Rico”

      This might be the part that angers me the most about people like her. You have people coming here from all over the world because they’re dying to be American. And then you got these Puerto Ricans who ARE American but hate it. All they do is wave their Puerto Rican flags (because heaven forbid they ever wave an American flag) around and complain about how America is racist against them. If it were up to me I would release them as their own country, then after it starts turning into a Cuba, DR, Jamaica, Haiti, etc. maybe they’ll show a little gratitude.

    • Right of the People says:


      Bless you and your family. I have often been of the opinion as rednecked as it may sound that “America, love it or leave it”. If you don’t like the way things are done here and you aren’t from here, get the hell out! Nobody has forced these people, especially the illegals who it is my job to keep out, to come here. If you are so damned proud of the third world sh*thole you came from that you have to wave its flag, burn ours, etc. THEN GO THE HELL BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM, WE DON’T WANT YOU HERE!


    • caligirl9 says:

      NJYankee, you remind me of my Spanish II teacher back in high school. She was Cuban-born but American-proud. None of that LaRaza stuff for her, no siree! She was grateful for the opportunities the U.S. put on the table for her and her kids—and by opportunities I don’t mean welfare! She was an excellent teacher, and I remember how easy it was to get her off-subject and ask her how life in Cuba was. She still loved the old Cuba, her Cuba, but her Cuba was no longer there.

      Please come back and join us often!

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Did you hear that………….. you hyphenated Americans?
      njyankee is a FIRST GENERATION AMERICAN!!!!!!!!

      I dig it!!

    • neocon mom says:

      From your description (and from Sotomayor’s aforementioned activism on behalf of Hispanics) it seems to me that the terms “Latino” and “Hispanic ought to carry the same stigma as the term “Aryan”. Particularly when we see how she has devoted her life to advancing the “Hispanic” cause and of course in her “wise latina” comment. Why is there nobility in advancing the “cause” of race?

  5. Helena says:

    Certainly part of the interview process for lawyers must be to see how they respond to embarrassing or potentially upsetting questions. But when someone in the real world, who was considering her for a job, asked a tough question about if she would have been admitted to Princeton if she weren’t Puerto Rican (where she was pushing for affirmative action “timetables” – so, was completely familiar with the issue and presumably able to discuss it dispassionately) she “challenged the interviewer and refused an invitation for a second interview”. Instead, she came up with a complaint to embarrass the firm: “the interviewer asked me insensitive questions about whether I was an affirmative action admission at school” and took it to the dean of the law school for him to slap them down. I just think it’s interesting that rather than prove herself to this firm, she ran to an authority figure to take her side.

    • pdsand says:

      That’s what I took out of that incident as well. She was hurt by the implication that she needed institutional assistance to be at Yale, so she ran for institutional assistance to fight back. It kinda proves the gentleman’s point.

      Kinda like getting called a momma’s boy, and running to your mom to tattle.

      Of course the whole affirmative action program is still working for her, because as far as there is any indication, she is also an affirmative action hire to the Supreme Court.

  6. pdsand says:

    “The top priority of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund when she joined its board, for instance, was challenging what it regarded as racial gerrymandering in legislative districts, an issue the Supreme Court is now weighing as it considers a central element of the Voting Rights Act. The fund also fought to reform the hiring process in New York’s police and fire departments, raising some of the questions now under review by the Supreme Court in an employment discrimination case involving the New Haven fire department — a case that Sotomayor ruled on as an appeals judge. And as a board member of the New York Mortgage Agency, Sotomayor helped promote home loans for low-income minorities, an issue central to the recent housing boom and bust.”

    Somehow they fail to mention that she was on the exact wrong side of all of these issues, as is clearly demonstrable from the facts. What a laugh.

    • pdsand says:

      “U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, another co-founder of the organization, noted that many of the issues the fund battled persist today. “They’re issues of social justice that haven’t gone away,” he said”

      I wonder why that is. After all her hard work.

  7. RightWinger says:

    I’m so sick and tired about how not enough “minorities” are interviewed and hired because the hiring process is biased. What is always left ouf of such charges by the race baiters is how many minorities actually apply for jobs to begin with. Always a basic charge, but never any discussion about the details.

    The question is how many applicants are there and how many positions need to be filled. College football’s coaching isse always irks me, especially when the lefty race baiters go out and cry not enough head coaches are from a minority. If a school has an opening and 20 qualified people step up and interview, the school certainly doesn’t need to go hunting elsewhere for more people. If only 1 of the 20 qualified coaches who applies is a minority, where does it say that the job has to go them automatically? (yes I know in the Dummies Guide to Liberalism it says minorities get jobs ahead of all others regardless of circumstances.)

    • pdsand says:

      When UGA’s coaching job came open 9 years ago there was much finger wagging about how they didn’t take the “opportunity” at that time to become the first SEC school to hire a black coach, and the recently departed coach at Miss State was mentioned a lot at the time. I guess they should have discarded any interest in having a decent football team just for the sake of hiring Mr. Croom and doing the right thing.
      I think they have put the issue to rest for now by (to their great disgrace) firing the legendary Vince Dooley as athletic director and replacing him with Damon Evans. But like Barbara Dooley said in the foreword to that book, I also think the University President came to Athens with many goals in mind, and one of them was getting rid of Vince Dooley. I guess in college football, as in life, liberals hate success.

    • catie says:

      pdsand, my mother went to grade school with Vincent Dooley at St. Mary’s in Mobile, AL. They still exchange Christmas cards and he’s given us tickets many times to the Sugar Bowl if we wanted to go. His wife, Barbara, discussed with me the “merits” of the Delta Zeta sorority and sent one of those notes to the national chapter the year I went through rush. I am a Delta Zeta probably because of her telling me how wonderful they were and her “help”. They’re a really nice couple and he still keeps in touch with one of their old teachers, Sister Mary Patrick who has been teaching in Japan since the 1950’s. She always stays with them when she gets back to the States for her visits. I believe you are right, liberals hate success unless it’s in Hollywood and you’re a lib.

    • pdsand says:

      That’s outstanding. I met the man one time, but I was all stammers and wobbly knees. Actually now that I think about it, I met him twice, with the same results.

    • neocon mom says:

      “Loser pays” rule would avert many discrimination claims, unless really legitimate, from ever being brought.
      What does it say in this day and age when the city of New Haven could have promoted the firefighters who passed and probably have settled the inevitable discrimination suit with the black firefighters or taken it to court? It certainly would have cost the taxpayers less than the Ricci case has so far. The city was going to get sued by someone, and in the end, they would rather have the white and Hispanic firefighters sue than the black ones. They probably would have settled with the black firefighters for far less money, but the political cost of settling to a discrimination suit brought by African Americans in liberal New Haven and being viewed as culpable? Too high to pay. The cost of appeals all the way to the Supreme court when the discrimination plaintiff
      (enemy of the city) is white? Priceless, politically speaking, in the town of Yale.

  8. proreason says:

    We always suspect the darkest side in proreasonland.

    Might the reason Souter “resigned” have something to do with the Auto “bankruptcies”.


    – Souter is looney, but not looney enough to overturn centuries of contract law.
    – Red Sonia is

  9. JohnMG says:

    So what we have here as a nominee to the Supreme Court, is a seasoned, Puerto Rican “community organizer”.


  10. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    Sotomayor’s biggest mistake is that she thinks her beliefs speak for her entire race. Living here in southwest Texas I can say from experience that there are many perspectives with the Hispanic community of living in America. There are those whose cross the border illegally, and bad mouth the U.S. while enjoying it’s welfare benefits. And there are those who come here legitimately, work hard and send the money home, or squirrel it all away in the bank in the hopes of one day having enough to bring their families here to become part of the American dream. It angers me to no end to see minorities who finally reach a position of prominence, who instead of using their sudden influence for the better, instead use it as a means of payback against previous racial injustices.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      i.e. Obamy the Commie

    • neocon mom says:

      Precisely why the Dems worked so hard to smear Miguel Estrada. To give the Republicans credit for advancing the position of someone who immigrated here at 17 knowing no English would have the blistering effect of not only neutralizing much hyped claims of racism by the G.O.P.but it would also highlight the success of someone who is supposed to regard himself as a victim. I don’t understand the why Hispanics, Latinos are all part of a “victim group” anyway (unless we are talking about Cubans under Castro.) I thought they were coming to America to seek opportunity, not to lodge grievances.

  11. woodmanthered says:

    njyankee nice comments glad to hear from you. I don’t think the use of these titles “hispanic”, “afro-american” ect. ect. have ever done anything but seperate the people of this country. The sooner we get rid of this and call ourselves Americans. It would send such a strong signal to everyone every where that we are one country together. This is not to say that you should not be proud of your heritage and celebrate this.But first and foremost we must be Americans. I just don,t trust this lady because of the statements that she so easily states.

  12. canary says:

    I don’t think your allowed to live in a housing project, if you have enough money to pay for two children to attend a private Catholic school. Mabye alot of unreporting of finances. For example I don’t think you can claim a large car payment, to be entitled to welfare housing. Things were probably different back then. I thought that the Puerto Rico’s and Mexicans practiced racism against one another. And today there are so many gangs based on differences like this.
    So, does this mean she was battling for Puerto Ricans and not Mexicans during this time? Are these grants so good, that one doesn’t have to work on the side?
    Soon, white’s will get fake foriegn ID’s to go to school free. Oops. Forgot free school on the way.

  13. VMAN says:

    That’s all these libtards can see is race. Just like that idiot Gore misquoted “E Pluribus Unum” saying “Out of the one many” these idiots don’t see America as a homogeneous group. Hispanic? What a joke!!! Are they Mexican? Puerto Rican? Cuban? Brazilian? Argentinian? oh and Spanish? Latino? I’ve never heard one speaking Latin. I”M WHITE and I”M AN AMERICAN!!! Not Scottish-American or German-American or French-American (although I wouldn’t admit it) or English-American. “Hispanic” people like to call us “Anglos” but some are Saxons or Francs or Normans or Goths or Celts and maybe even Barbarians (They’d probably like that one)

  14. Anonymoose says:

    I had a long winded reply but decided to settle on this. Has she ever really seen the world except through her own judgments?

    • proreason says:

      She’s spent her entire life in 3 east coast states. I had more life experiences than that by the time I was 7.

    • pdsand says:

      No, apparently she arrived on campus with a long list of grievances against Princeton. She probably fell off her bike as a child and blamed the white man for building the bike and paving the sidewalk.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      At the ripe age of 19, I was carrying a radio in Southeast Asia (Vietnam).

  15. beautyofreason says:

    My mother is from the Dominican Republic, so I have a “latina” parent and can tick “Hispanic” on the census box, yet I have never felt excluded from public life due to race/ ethnicity.

    Sotomayor is just another person who uses the ethno / race card and fake grievances to advance her career. Sounds like a carbon duplicate of Obama, in fact I think that’s why he chose her. Her disdain for white Americans and U.S. / Western culture is clear and parallels Obama’s own race gripes in his “Dreams from my Father.” Her history of joining racially charged groups (“La Raza”) and demanding discriminatory hiring will be ignored on the left, and if a white person demanded similar follies you can be certain they would be booted and brandished a KKK member from day one, and prohibited from serving on the bench.

    The last thing we want is a Supreme Court justice dictating by feelings and the warm oozy feeling she gets when a white person loses a discrimination suit…

  16. proreason says:

    “It would be considered a disgrace if an umpire in a baseball game let his “empathy” determine whether a pitch was called a ball or strike. Surely we should accept nothing less from a judge.”

    Thomas Sowell


    That man is a genius

« Front Page | To Top
« | »