Sotomayor is a racist because she assumes a superiority as a Latino that is not possible for whites.

That is a lie...the only "proof" you have to back up that statement is a partial quote of hers that was taken completely out of context...try again...

A racist is any person who makes an assumption based on race.

That definition needs some work.
Webster defines racism as,

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

See how that is much less hazy and doesn't include such innocuous things as, I assume, even before seeing them, that an african american will be darker skinned than I am. Does that assumption make me racist? According to DavidL's definition, yes. In fact DavidL's definition makes everyone a racist.

I honestly don't know if you or DavidL are racists. I do know that if I hold you to the same standards that you hold your political opponents to (a tactic I am borrowing from you) then you are both racists. Do you not see the double standard you're employing?

A racist is any person who makes an assumption based on race. Period. Full stop.

The ilk of David Duke are racist because they assume that whites are inherently superior to non-whites. Like wise, Sotomayor is a racist because she assumes a superiority as a Latino that is not possible for whites. If there were such a thing as the Knights of Kolor Klan, Sotomayor would be proud member in good standing and neither version of the KKK would be any less racist than the other.

So, the question becomes, how is it you watse so much good spit on David's original comment, while ignoring the overt racist attitude Sotomayor exhibts? Do you not see the double standard you're employing?

Wow, that is quite the rationalization

Not at all. Look closely at your own spittle filled comments as well as those from WhiskeyFire, and you'll notice it worked rather well. The comment drew liberloons like wolfs to a sheep.... so busy were they expressing their high moral outrage they not a one of them noticed the people they were defending were ACTUAL racists. Group politics is racism/sexism, Grew. If you can't bring yourself to understand that salient point, I don't expect you to have the wit to understand the rest of it either. But I consdier the point well made to those with the brains to see it.

Simple; If that reference angers you and the overt racism of the candidate herself and that of Obama doesn't, where are you? You're certainly not on the racism high road that most leftists like to claim for themselves.

Wow, that is quite the rationalization. Now you can call Obama and any of his appointees any bigoted name you choose because you have built such an ironclad defense for yourself. You and DavidL aren't really racist, your just trying to smoke out the real racists.

But hey mon, you have some major luminaries on your side. Newt has joined Rush (AKA the Conscience of the GOP) in blasting Sister Sonia as a racist. And of course, the barking dogs are at it 24/7.

The question begs exploration: Is this the way to attract the educated class, or those under 30, or the female voters to your banner? Those, by every available pole have gone to the Independent or Democratic camp. Who then, for God’s sake, are you trying to attract to you cause?

It really boils down to this question: Are you an advocate, or an apologist for the strains that permeate the Libertarian / Conservative / Republican Party? Newt, Rush, and others are clearly advocates. Daniel Larison, and very few others, are apologists.

I think it was Julius Caesar the once said to Mark Anthony: If you do not have enough troops that believe in what you say, you can kiss you’re a*s good by…

Simple; If that reference angers you and the overt racism of the candidate herself and that of Obama doesn't, where are you?

Ohhh, I see...so it's ok to use a racist term to describe someone if the point is to smoke out other people's support for that person(who is supposedly a "racist")...wow, there's some sterling logic there...how, exactly, are the president and his nominee "racists"? These lines of attack against Sotomayor are desperate, disingenuous, and pathetic...such a pity that none of them have the slightest chance of working...

Explain exactly how the post is made stronger or more persuasive by using the term "spic chic".

Simple; If that reference angers you and the overt racism of the candidate herself and that of Obama doesn't, where are you? You're certainly not on the racism high road that most leftists like to claim for themselves.

Would my argument be made stronger or more persuasive if I called DavidL a cracker. That would of course be in support of my charge of reverse reverse racism*.

There was at least a very weak defense for this poster using the term "house nigger" when referring to Obama. Now with this post there appears to be (one of your favorites) a pattern forming.

A bunch of quotes about how she's unqualified.

2 = a bunch? One quote expresses mixed opinions and the other one, from a far right ideologue, considers both her and the one she is replacing mediocre. Neither states she is unqualified.

On what basis might someone think she was qualified?

As has been pointed out she has the same qualifications on paper as Alito, though with less of her opinions reversed by the supreme court. Alito had at least 4 decisions reversed by the supreme court and more overturned by lower courts.

Because he was looking for someone of a particular race and gender.

That's racism, and sexism, Grew. Plain and simple.

By that logic, Reagan was a sexist for choosing O'Connor and GHWB was a racist for choosing Thomas. Was Reagan a sexist? Was GHWB a racist?

* ie racism

Whatever Obama looks for in an appointee, it isn’t talent and ability.

What is it you suppose remains?

Because he was looking for someone of a particular race and gender.

That's racism, and sexism, Grew. Plain and simple.

Now, need anything else explained to you?

While responding to you, would you care to discuss your referring to Judge Sotomayor as a "spic chic" [sic] on your sewer of a blog?

Would you care to read it again, this time getting the attribution correct?

As for the rest, had you bothered to read further, you'd have noticed that the charge of reverse racism was being laid.

BS. Following is the entire article (sans the blockquoted portions)

Say what you will about George (Forty-Three) Bush. He had but two Supreme Court opening and he nailed both of them. Both of Bush’s nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito had impeccable records and were conceded to judicial intellects.

With the pending retirement of David Souter, the one now has his opportunity to leave his mark on the court. Given that Souter is the very epitome of mediocre, Obama has a great opportunity to upgrade the court and put a liberal intellect on the court to match the power of say Anton Scalia.

Not surprisingly, Obama appears to be focusing demographics and not judicial factors. Obama isn’t looking for a liberal Scalia. He looking for a spic chic. Enter Sonia Sotomayor, from Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic:

---Rosen quote---

The case for Sotomayor is that she a compelling biography and mothering nature. However as circuit court judge she seems rather mediocre. The thought of Sotomayor doesn’t seem to be sending chills down the libtards’ spines.

Ed Morrissey, Hot Air, puts Sotomayor is context with all of Obama’s appointments:

---Morrissey quote---

Whatever Obama looks for in an appointee, it isn’t talent and ability. Obama appears to limit his selections to only those few that fit his rather narrow socialist perspective. While, Obama may consider himself, another John F. Kennedy, among other, Obama’s administration will never earn a Kennedy like description as the Best and Brightest. With the one, is more of the dull and the ideologue.

Not one thing about reverse racism in the whole post. We are again treated to Bit's incapability of admitting fault in the face of overwhelming evidence.