A couple of thoughts come to mind which are based upon the above, a veiled reference to Affirmative Action.

“I’m an affirmative action baby”
Sotomayor has admitted that her acceptance to Ivy League schools would have been “highly questionable” if not for affirmative action.

“My test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at Princeton or Yale,” she said . She describes herself as a “perfect affirmative action baby,” and that she was accepted to Princeton and Yale despite her lackluster test performance compared to other applicants.

She made these comments in a video dating back to the “early ’90s” that she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of her Supreme Court nomination process.

Tool or Crutch?
To your point, Lamont, I shared your thinking that the above facts alone are in no way indicative of a person who harbors racist thinking and beliefs. In fact, I had never considered these remarks as part of the equation until you mentioned “the benefits of structural racial advantages”.

I believed that we cannot judge Ms. Sotomayor to be a racist because of her willingness to take advantage of Affirmative Action which provides opportunities to the academically challenged.

But then I thought about that a little further and came to the sound conclusion that she used a service which provided her an advantage. In a deeper analysis, she used her race as an advantage at the expense of others who could not, as they did not qualify for those same services based solely upon their race.

Regardless, I’ll concede this angle on the basis that it is argumentative.

She offers one more reason
Sticking to the facts which cannot be argued, Ms. Sotomayor’s self described “lackluster test performance compared to other applicants” is one more good reason why she isn’t qualified to sit in a chair inside the walls of the Supreme Court of the United States.

I’ll close the argument on the words of Abraham Lincoln: “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”

By the way, he was a Republican.

First of all, I’m a feminist. Loud and proud, baby. I enjoy knitting and watching wedding shows and painting my toenails and fighting for equal rights. Oh my.
Okay here we go.
1. Marriage is not an institution that has always enjoyed the daydreams of women all over the world. First of all because it is still in many places a way of transferring ownership of the woman from the father to the husband. Romance me! Second because in some cultures there is no marriage in our cultural sense of it, a woman and a man in some cultures have open marriages. Then we move on to the fact that the dreams you are referring to are ones of the Wedding, not the marriage. The actual party, not the unity between two people.

2. There are things harmful to women in marriage. In married households women do far more than half of the daily chores (not women who stay at home, women who have full time jobs). Marriage, as I said before, used to be about ownership. So much stress is put on having the perfect wedding and being the perfect bride that women diet, many times in unhealthy ways, get their teeth whitened, spend inordinate amounts of money on a large, fluffy dress that will be worn once, and for what? One big ass party. Women are even getting plastic surgery on their vaginas! WTH.

3. I think that ONE woman’s urge to look sexy on her wedding day is far from the sweeping trend you make it to be, but the reason is probably in the fact that popular culture expects women to be sexy and flaunt what they’ve got (hello maxim, playboy, brittney spears videos) but be virginal (hello creeptastic purity balls, abstinence only education, religious right). If her husband-to-be, his family, and her family have no qualms, who are you to tell her she can’t be a sex goddess on her wedding day.

4. There is no demonizing between a commitment of a man and wife. Where did that woman say anything against it? Nowhere. Even the woman who isn’t getting married calls her partner the love of her life. What more do you need? She feels validated in her relationship without a piece of paper from the government, and while that is not the choice many women make (personally for the rights that go with being married, kthx) it is her decision, and if she has thought it through (which she said she had) and weighed the consequences, what more is there? Her man doesn’t seem mad about it (he’s a winner, and a keeper, obviously).

5. I fear you are misinterpreting this. There is nothing not to love about marriage. I love marriage SO much I wish everyone had the right to get married. So they could bask in the joy of having their relationship be official, even to those who do not approve. So that when their husband/wife is in the hospital, they can visit and make decisions. So that their children can be taken care of by both their parents. My, and probably a good chunk of feminists out there, problem is not with MARRIAGE, it is with WEDDINGS. They have grown out of control. I don’t need an engagement ring to show that I plan to marry someone. While I do plan to have the white dress, the wedding rings and my parents walk me down the isle, I’ll keep my last name.

Here’s a fun kicker, even if you don’t marry a self-proclaimed feminist, if she wants to work outside the house, or thinks its bull that she gets paid 76cents to your dollar, you’re still with a feminist. If she thinks that she should be able to walk down the street in a mini skirt without having men yell at her about how ‘hot’ she is, or be able to go to her car at night without being raped, you’re with a feminist.

It could be worse though. Apparently my income, race, and circumstances places my – albeit barely – into the new pariah class.

I son’t want them to provide a thing for my son; that’s our job, not the government’s. I just don’t want it to take so much away from us that we can’t do our job.

We take personal responsibility for our own situation and what the Fates toss our way; we only ask that the government not forcibly take from us those resources we ourselves have earned that can do that.

This Bill isn’t about you and your and your son. It isn’t about providing anything for him. It’s aimed at subsidizing other sorts.

…Now get back to making taxable income / reparations funding.

I’m glad I finally got this whole racism thing sorted out. All these years, I thought that unquestioningly (in Sessions’ case, unconsciously) accepting the benefits of structural racial advantages (that still far outweigh any meager governmental attempts at mitigation) made you a racist. Now I find out that being the VICTIM of those structures make you a racist.

Lamont you haven’t sorted out squat! Racism is when one believes their race to be inherently superior than others. Furthermore Sotomayor would be among the last people qualified to claim having been a VICTIM of any racially preferential structures…Thanks for playing though!

Never fear, a satisfying, comprehensive solution is within reach: the Megamerge Dissolution Solution. Simply dissolve the border along with the failed Mexican government, and megamerge the two countries under U.S. law, with mass free 2-way migration eventually equalizing the development and opportunities permanently, with justice and without racism, and without threatening U.S. sovereignty or basic principles.

Click the url and read about the new paradigm for U.S.-Mexico relations.