Pat Buchanan: You Are a Hateful Disgrace

In an interview with Rachel Maddow tonight, Pat Buchanan makes an ass of himself stating that Sonia Sotomayor, a sitting judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit is not qualified to sit on the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor isn't qualified? Seriously? She's never written anything? Except detailed and well researched legal opinions. You forgot about those, didn't you, Pat?

Buchanan then goes on to say that this country was built by "white folks" and states that Sotomayor was appointed to the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court because she is a hispanic woman. And for only that reason. Buchanan wraps it up by stating that the reason we've only had white MEN (excluding Thomas) on the Supreme Court, is that the men have been more qualified.

Rachel has a good point, Pat. Let's compare your grades at Georgetown to Sotomayor's at Yale. Stop trying to paint white men as victims. Your problem is the one that Melissa's husband, DADocrat Daniel Levine, so aptly pointed out earlier this week: Pat, you are completely and utterly blind to your own prejudices and the privileges granted to you as a white male. You don't have a clue. Pat, until you walk a mile in a woman's heels or walk a mile in Sotomayor's heels, a latina woman raised in the Bronix who really knows what working class Americans are like, shut the hell up. You don't speak for us.

It's people like Pat Buchanan who really make me fear for this country, who make me worry and fret about the world I've brought my children into.  People like Pat Buchanan are completely unable to see the world outside their small sphere of experience.  People like Pat Buchanan prefer to blame their own white, male shortcomings on the reverse discrimination bogey man than to get off of their own asses and work harder.  People like Pat Buchanan find it easier to belittle an accomplished and intelligent JUDGE like Sonia Sotomayor, who has done far more for society than Pat Buchanan ever has, than to think for even a tiny moment that maybe, just maybe she actually is smarter.

And then Pat goes back to his office and asks his female secretary to fetch him some coffee.  Because that's the way it should be.  Because this country was "built by white folks."  And by men.  Women had absolutely nothing to do with it.  Neither, apparently did anyone of color.  Not even those who literally built the South.

Pat, you can stick this woman's size 6 1/2 high heeled shoe up your white, pompous ass.

After you dig Rachel's out.

Thanks to Tracy Viselli for the video. She has an excellent post of her own up about Buchanan. Cross posted at Lawyer Mama in slightly different form.

Comments

[Karoli]

We need to hit the mute button on Pat. He's obviously lost it, doesn't deserve the platform, and is so incredibly in step with the other pompous white racist dudes in his party while being out of step with just about 98% of the country that he needs to get on his horse and ride into the sunset.

[Victor Alderman]

Well. I'm both Pat and Rachel fans. Pat is a nice aside when MSNBC gets a little over board, and God knows FOX needs the balance! And so Pat keeps MSNBC honest.

I am a 60 year old (WG) white guy, and I am a Solid Obama man. What I find so great about his election is that we WGs are now off the hook, so to speak.

Without any 'extra' push we voted for the black guy. He is what we needed. A lot like the track team comment Pat made during debate. The best, fastest, smartest, coolest, all around great president. Consequentially, the guilt factor is way down now and affirmative action should go down with it. Roberts’s court is letting us all-in-on the conservatives’ message to the same effect. The ONE THANG I agree with them.

Pat was defending our WG niche, and doing quite well. Rachel pushed it too far by asking him if he felt 'proud' of his country now that Judge Sotomayor is getting picked. I LOVE Rachell, but she is beating a dead horse. Chill Rachel, I agree with Pat on this one. Us white men have given and given for generations of our countrymen we knew not. And it is time to level the playing field.

Am I proud of my country now? You damned right I am. She is a latina WOMAN....much needed. The latina is a side-show (black woman yes). We need more and then we will have a just court. Not the Miranda years court but a better one. God bless the Latinas everywhere, and God bless America.

[Lawyer Mama]

Victor - You make Pat sounds so reasonable, but we all know that he isn't. He wasn't just defending the WG, he said the WG is more qualified and has been for all this time, discounting the effects of gender and racial discrimination for the entire history of this country. He completely ignored and belittled the contributions of everyone else in this country, including women. He didn't say it was time to level the playing field. He doesn't even acknowledge that it was ever uneven. He sees white men as the victims. Well, white men didn't build this country by themselves.

I don't see Pat as Rachel Maddow's foil. Rachel has never been so disrespectful or delivered such a hateful message.

But maybe I just see Pat that way because I'm a woman. A woman who's spent a lot of time in a man's field. I just wish there were more WG like you out there, Victor, and maybe a few fewer Pats.

[cynematic]

I like that Rachel brings the facts, and Pat's WG wishful thinking ("smarter, better qualified, most important in building this country") doesn't hold up to them.

Pat is NOT benign. Like Karoli said, it's time for him to be put out to pasture.

[Milo]

I don't want an activist Hispanic female justice on the Supreme Court making decisions based on gender and race for the same reason that I don't want an activist white guy interpreting the law to favor HIS race and gender. So Sotomayor's statement about Wise Hispanic Women strikes me as as dangerous and bigoted as anything Pat said.

[Lawyer Mama]

Milo have you actually read the entirety of her comment & not just the soundbIte the Republicans are referring to? If you read it in context it's quite obvious that that isn't what she meant. Plus, your activist judge could be my rational thinker. If you look at her judicial record it becomes clear that she is no such thing. But the Republican party never lets reality get in the way.

[Milo]

Activist judge might be your rational thinker. Yep. Also might be racist neo-Nazi scumbag. That's why justices with an agenda should be shipped out and replaced with justices who analyze for original intent. Then if the law seems unjust according to modern sensibilities, the POLITICAL process can change it. Not some creep in a black robe (who was never elected and cant be fired) with an axe to grind.

[Lawyer Mama]

Milo - Love how you made that leap from "rational thinker" to "racist neo-Nazi scumbag!" LOL!
I'm a lawyer, so let me make this clear: *Every* judge has an agenda. They all "interpret" the law and that interpretation is based, in part, on their personal experiences and in part on their political and social ideology. Hence, the wise Latina comment. If you think that every white male on the Supremes *isn't* bringing their personal life experience and "agenda" to the court, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Like I said, if you look at her actual judicial record, she's far from an "activist judge." But like I said, why let facts get in the way?

[Milo]

You keep making this about white males. It isn't. It is about justices who seek to determine what the law meant to the framers versus justices who feel the constitution can be interpreted differently from era to era based on what feels good now. I feel the latter are dangerous...since while they MAY be rational thinkers, they may also turn out to be racist scumbags or evil conservatives or whatever other offensive category you wish to use. That is my "leap" which you apparently misunderstood. I would gladly confirm nine black or Hispanic women to the bench if they sought to interpret the big document as it was meant in 1787 rather than as they feel "justice" deserves. Then if the ruling is unjust, get the political branches to change the law. That's why it should be immaterial what genitalia the judge has or what color skin.

[Lawyer Mama]

And I think you have virtually no understanding of how the justice system actually works in this country. There is no one "original intent". Even the framed fought vigorously over the meaning of that document. And legal scholars have been debating how the constitution should be interpreted down to every comma and article since that time! The framers deliberately made it flexible & that is the genius of the document. What you propose is simply not workable or practical. It's kind of like people who say " well why don't we just have a law for everything so no one has to interpret anything?" almost every civil case that ends up in court and certainly in the Supreme Court I'd entirely gray. and judges aren't simply interpreting the constitution. In fact they rarely do that. They're interpreting legislation that can be interested inore than one way. Otherwise it wouldn't end up in court in the first place. Anyone who's been to law school or had any extensive contact with the judicial system will tell you the same thing. This is the beauty of the common law. The basis for all jurisprudence in this country.

[Lawyer Mama]

Pardon the massive typos. I'm answering on my phone.

[Milo]

Chief Justice Roberts and J's Scalia, Thomas and Alito (ntm Judge Robert Bork) have all spent careers advocating originalist construction. I suspect they know the justice system even if I don't. (and I admit my knowledge is limited to a couple of semesters of ConLaw, CrimPro, CrimLaw, and Evidence....my concentrations were tax and transactions ).

[Lawyer Mama]

Yes they are. But I'm sure they'd also acknowledge that there's is only *one* legal interpretation theory and that constitutional interpretation is far from all they do. Plus, I know quite a few legal scholars who would argue that the strict constructionists are simply using their constitutional interpretation to further their own conservative leaning social policies.

If you've had any classes in Constitutional law then you know that our laws are based not only on the constitution, but on the common law. Justices follow precedent to a large degree. As society changes, the common law changes as well. Sometimes in small increments and sometimes in one giant leap. It would be completely impractical for a judge to bust out "original intent" with every case in front of them. That's simply not what happens in most cases before an appellate court. It is in fact, pretty rare for even the Supreme Court to break with precedent claiming "original intent."

I'll go back to your original supposition - that Sotomayor is an "activist" judge. If you look at her actual judicial record, she isn't. She's far from a socially conservative strict constructionist, but she's far from an activist out there forging new law through judicial opinion. That's the ultimate point that you seem to be missing. Just because every conservative talk show host claims that she's an activist judge, does not make it so.

[Jim]

Pat Buchanan cares more about people than any dem ever will. His policies don't create useless welfare government dependent slugs screaming for more handouts. Dems are truly anti-compassion with the policies they support. Giving the unearned to people produces exactly what you're getting, people actually screaming for more government. It's mind-boggling. If you're one of them, you need to re-evaluate your choices and decisions in life. How did you get to this low state? Freest, for now, country on earth and you can't make it work? RUN from the dem party and associate with the winners in life.

[Lawyer Mama]

Hmmm.... yeah, everything Pat Buchanan has said about anyone who isn't like him - meaning white & male - has really made me think he cares more about people.

C'mon, Jim. Do you really think you're going to convince anyone reading this blog. You do know this is a partisan blog, right? Why don't you go recruit at a KKK rally?

And what does "freest" mean? I'm pretty sure that's not really a word.