Obamas nomination of Sotomayor

[janesback]

wow, unless I didn't seen any posts about his nomination, I am surprised that no ones mentioned it on this board

Any thoughts about his nomination of a woman, a latina who has been described as a liberal and who was brought up in the Bronx and yes,a Yankees fan?

Any thoughts about her on film discussing the Court of Appeals and what its function is , as well as her ruling against the white fire fighters? Jane

[East Detroit]

No, not really.

[firstandten]

Looking at this choice as one of maybe 2 or 3 that Obama will get as he tries to move the court from its conservative activist majority to more to the center.

[4real]

You mean the liberal activist judges on the court? like the ex ACLU freak Ginsberg.

Now Obama throws a activist liberal bigot to try to court the Hispanic vote.
I don't know if it matters much because anyone he appoints will have an activist liberal agenda to change the US instead of appointing someone who actually upholds the Constitution and states rights.

[d.mcc]

You mean the liberal activist judges on the court? like the ex ACLU freak Ginsberg.

Now Obama throws a activist liberal bigot to try to court the Hispanic vote.
I don't know if it matters much because anyone he appoints will have an activist liberal agenda to change the US instead of appointing someone who actually upholds the Constitution and states rights.

I'm calling bullshit on this one. Where was your argument in 2000???

[4real]

you can call whatever you want, I strongly believe in the 1st amendment.

I'm talking about the present, today, now, what are you talking about?

[d.mcc]

you can call whatever you want, I strongly believe in the 1st amendment.

I'm talking about the present, today, now, what are you talking about?

Well...There are 26 others that are just as important as the 1st.

My favorite happens to be the 9th, and I am strong believer in that particular amendment

[rb336]

You mean the liberal activist judges on the court? like the ex ACLU freak Ginsberg.

Now Obama throws a activist liberal bigot to try to court the Hispanic vote.
I don't know if it matters much because anyone he appoints will have an activist liberal agenda to change the US instead of appointing someone who actually upholds the Constitution and states rights.


activist judges -- funnnnnnnny

the "liberals" on the court have voted against laws made by the people's representatives 44%. It is the CONSERVATIVES who have been actively overturning legislation -- 56%

[firstandten]

activist judges -- funnnnnnnny

the "liberals" on the court have voted against laws made by the people's representatives 44%. It is the CONSERVATIVES who have been actively overturning legislation -- 56%

Exactly, I thought you would pick up on the fact that I said conservative activist judges because as you stated it is true.

[Flanders]

You mean the liberal activist judges on the court? like the ex ACLU freak Ginsberg.

Now Obama throws a activist liberal bigot to try to court the Hispanic vote.
I don't know if it matters much because anyone he appoints will have an activist liberal agenda to change the US instead of appointing someone who actually upholds the Constitution and states rights.

And what is Michael Steele doing as chairman of the RNC, but being a transparent attempt by the GOP to try and court the AA vote? For that matter Alberto Gonzalez as AG for the Hispanic vote in '06?

She won't be CJ and will add more diversity to the SC, by representing the Hispanic portion of the US population, which is growing faster than any other segment.

[firstandten]

She won't be CJ and will add more diversity to the SC, by representing the Hispanic portion of the US population, which is growing faster than any other segment.

Maybe next appointment Obama can put in an African-American since we currently don't have one, all we have is a puppet to Antonin Scalia.

[mjs]

Come on, white judeo-christian males don't have to fear a government takeover anytime soon. We've had only one minority and no females in the Presidency. The Senate is 1% african american, 3% hispanic american, 1% asian american, 0% native american, and 17% female. The House is 9%, 6%, 1%, 1/2%, and 17% respectively and there's only been one muslim congressman in the entire history of the United States. . http://www.centeroncongress.org/learn_about/feature/qa_members.html#makeup

I'm sure there's at least one female and/or minority that is extremely intelligent and highly qualified. Give partial diversity a chance.

[mjs]

Whats his new role going to be? Secretary of Racial Harmony in Der Homeland?

I thought the Nazis were racist.

[rb336]

As a first it is a righteous thing to do but as a matter of principle I would never appoint a sexist and a racist to the highest court in the land but then agsain, I'm just a "typical white person".?

no, you sound like a typical druggie limbaugh parrot with no understanding of the real world


No, sorry. It seems like this whole election has been carefully crafted as a racial thing coming from the left.

now you simply sound like a paranoid, racist fool


Every damn day its been about white this, black that, hispanic this,asian that etc etc etc.

know you just sound more and more moronic


Talk about wearing out the race card liberals. You have made this entire thing about race and at every turn took a shot at calling people racist who disagreed with you.
At least you pulled back your dog Sharpton from crying wolf every 5 secs of every damn day...

your racism is now screaming from the pages. you are using every bit of racist code language right out of the druggie and rove playbook


But obviously the question of her racism and sexism is too much for you to actually elaborate on therefore you answer me back with a racist undertoned statement.

I've heard many things about her, but where are you getting this racist/sexist bullshit?

[mjs]

activist judges -- funnnnnnnny

the "liberals" on the court have voted against laws made by the people's representatives 44%. It is the CONSERVATIVES who have been actively overturning legislation -- 56%

Activist has no more connection to liberal or conservative than orange has to short or tall.

Judges can overturn previous cases and they can invalidate legislation. Only Congress can overturn previous legislation. An Activist Judge is a judge that believes that the Consitution provides implied federal powers. A Strict Constructionalist believes that if you can't find it in the Constitution, the Feds don't have the Power. So, Strict Constructionalists generally invalidate more legislation.

[mjs]

FreeofAleTall, where did I say or imply you were racist? I used data to point out that restricting the choice to a minority and/or female is not racism, but a much needed diversity producing effort. Racism is saying that we need a Hispanic American female because whites and males are too stupid to handle the job. Your "der homeland" crack implied that those you were debating were as racist and totalitarian as the Nazi's. I used sarcasm to point out that the argument was an absurd exaggeration.

Chill out. I prefer to attack arguments rather than people. Don't take every thing so damned personal.

[Red Devil]

I don't see how this will help to court votes. The majority of U.S. hispanics, aside from Puerto Ricans and perhaps some Americanized latinos, won't care about this nomination. They are much more concerned with a solution to the immigration issue. Latin america has a wide variety of nationality groups and there is often tension between them. They don't help each other out as much as other new immigrants do (Koreans for example). There is a lot of resentment towards Puerto Ricans, as many think they are "better" than other hispanics due to their automatic U.S. citizenship.

[rb336]

Nice try but I am not going for it.

Tell you what though. I won't even bother copying and pasting and sending this ridulous rant personally attacking me to the administrtors of this site.

Not that I think it would make any bit of difference.

Enjoy !

dude, your rants were exactly how i described them. it's not semantics, I was talking about how you sound, except that last part, and that paragraph WAS screaming racism and the whole post was quite despicable and hate-filled

[d.mcc]

Her saying she is more qualified than a white male is racist.

Unless she is telling the truth, in which case YOU are the racist

[d.mcc]

Restricting any job on the basis of color, ethnicty, religion etc is racist.

Her saying she is more qualified than a white male is racist.

Her upholding a ruling denying white men and hispnaic man a job based solely on their skin color is racist.

Affirmitive action is no longer needed and is more of a racist tool than anything hindering those best qualified to perform jobs badly needed in our society.

This is no longer the America of the 1960s and has not been for a many number of years.
Its too bad you liberals dont get it. Or maybe you do but just do not have a problem discriminating against a "certain group of people" based on the color of their skin.

I think its the ladder.

Id rather have a firefighter that is intelligent than a politically correct appointee that is going to cost someone their life.

For the record, everything about this post was racist. And its LATTER

[mjs]

FreeofAleTall, definitions are key to good communication. Merriam-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" and affirmative action as "an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women". If your talking about the sexes, its sexism.

You are arguing against affirmative action and keep using the term racism and wondering why people don't understand your argument.

[firstandten]

I don't see how this will help to court votes. The majority of U.S. hispanics, aside from Puerto Ricans and perhaps some Americanized latinos, won't care about this nomination. They are much more concerned with a solution to the immigration issue. Latin america has a wide variety of nationality groups and there is often tension between them. They don't help each other out as much as other new immigrants do (Koreans for example). There is a lot of resentment towards Puerto Ricans, as many think they are "better" than other hispanics due to their automatic U.S. citizenship.

I agree with that assessment but I also believe that if the Republicans put up too much of a fuss with this appointment they can write off the hispanic vote in the next election cycle. Effectively what Obama has done is to box the republicans in by putting a qualitified female hispanic for SCOTUS, the republicans want to push back, but they need to start winning some elections since they have been pounded the last two election cycles. As a result the president keeps his domestic agenda on track , and starts to shape the court along the lines that he thinks it should be.

The battle we should expect to see is if one of the conservative majority retires and who Obama would pick to replace that person.

[Flanders]

Restricting any job on the basis of color, ethnicty, religion etc is racist.

Her saying she is more qualified than a white male is racist.

Her upholding a ruling denying white men and hispnaic man a job based solely on their skin color is racist.

Affirmitive action is no longer needed and is more of a racist tool than anything hindering those best qualified to perform jobs badly needed in our society.

This is no longer the America of the 1960s and has not been for a many number of years.
Its too bad you liberals dont get it. Or maybe you do but just do not have a problem discriminating against a "certain group of people" based on the color of their skin.

I think its the ladder.

Id rather have a firefighter that is intelligent than a politically correct appointee that is going to cost someone their life.


You should not post a reply like this, admonishing liberals for "not getting it" when you are unable to spell words, use punctuation, or construct sentences or paragraphs using proper English. Being on the internet, with the ability to easily check your spelling, as well as having the ability to use browsers that have built-in spell check is inexcusable, IMO. I can not speak for anyone else who posts here, but you lose credibility points with me, and I find the authoritative tone to your posts to be unearned and undeserved.

[oldredfordette]

Troll bait.

[ccbatson]

Don't let this be turned into a race or gender question...it is a question of the wrongness of liberal activist (or any activist judges) making laws instead of interpreting them.

[Philbo]

Calling some one a druggie, racist, fool,and moronic causes me to lose credibility too. Both sides now.:mad:

[ccbatson]

Sigh...how often are liberals going to try and go that well. Name calling of the messenger when they can't argue the message successfully.

[firstandten]

Regardless of how you feel about Pres Obama's politics, I remain impressed with how he goes about preparing to make a decision. Regarding Sotomayor, this link goes into detail about what his administration did even up front to prepare for a possible SCOTUS vacancy. The kind of care and involvement in this decision was what I hoping for when he transitioned from candidate to president. That doesn't mean that one should or will agree with his decisions, but to know that the decision wasn't arrived by haphazardly carries great weight with me.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28select.html?hp

[d.mcc]

Don't let this be turned into a race or gender question...it is a question of the wrongness of liberal activist (or any activist judges) making laws instead of interpreting them.

Well, better go back to civics class there friend, judges cannot make laws!

[vetalalumni]

I'm sure there's at least one female and/or minority that is extremely intelligent and highly qualified. Give partial diversity a chance.

Apologetic sentiments aside, Honorable Judge Sotomayor's known vitae qualifies her very well.

[Detroitej72]

I challenge all right wingers here to give an example of her being an activist judge. You can't use the firefighters case as an example, since she and the other justices were acting out of precedence, which is something you people continuously preach.

I bet your will be hard pressed to find one, as your right wing wacko commentators haven't spoken about any other cases.

[Bobl]

Looking at this choice as one of maybe 2 or 3 that Obama will get as he tries to move the court from its conservative activist majority to more to the center.
Probably true. Life will go on. The sun will still appear to rise in the east and set in the west.
Sadly, the extreme right wing AM radio crowd will rant and rave. My advice to them: follow your leader Rush's example and self medicate with illegal oxy prescriptions. If that doesn't work, you could always mock a handicapped person, just like Rush.

[Detroitej72]

One thing that is disturbing to me is some callers to AM radio complaining that we'll now have 6 justices that are of the Catholic faith. Why would that be an issue?

This appears to reinforce the belief that Catholics are still looked down upon in this country. That is a sad testament to the 21st century landscape.

[ccbatson]

Well said d.mcc....Sotomayer and other activist judges desperately need that civics lesson you are talking about.

[Detroitej72]

I can't help but notice you failed to provide proof of her being an activist judge. By the way, whats your definition of one?

[ccbatson]

You haven't heard her say it on that taped meeting? Check it out...she even sheepishly chastises herself for saying it.

[vetalalumni]

... she even sheepishly chastises herself for saying it.
Nope. Listen to all of the clip.

ug-qUvI6WFo


This was an extremely influential person openly acknowledging the gravitas of the occupation. People, especially powerful or influential, should honorably self govern themselves by choice as part of their responsibility to the influenced. It is referred to as good or sound judgement. The sheepish self chastisement was essentially self deprecation. Get it now?

[WolverinesA2]

Yeah, what we need are more strict constitutionalists like Scalia and Thomas, who think that gay sex should be a felony punishable by prison terms. No joke, they actually voted against de-criminalizing gay sex in Lawrence v Texas.

These are the types of judges that FreeofAletall and Ccbatson would like our country to have, "activist" judges pushing a Far Right Christian agenda.

[gazhekwe]

Or more judges who think what's OK for them as boys should be just fine for everyone else. (Taking off your own clothes among a class full of others doing the same preparing for gym class equates to being required to undress in front of three watching adults). Somehow, that doesn't qualify as applying your own understanding of life to your decision affecting others who might have a different understanding.

[mjs]

Yeah, what we need are more strict constitutionality's like Scalia and Thomas, who think that gay sex should be a felony punishable by prison terms. No joke, they actually voted against de-criminalizing gay sex in Lawrence v Texas.

These are the types of judges that FreeofAletall and Ccbatson would like our country to have, "activist" judges pushing a Far Right Christian agenda.

You're not even making sense. Are Scalia and Thomas strict constructionists or activists? The two terms fall on opposite sides of the spectrum. Thomas is arguably the most strict constructionist the Court has ever seen. He takes the Tenth Amendment literally: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." What he said was that if you want gay sex to be protected by the US Constitution, start drafting the amendment because its currently not mentioned. He will most defiantly allow any State law that legalizes gay marriage and will defiantly strike down any Federal law that bans it. Gay marriage is a pretty liberal idea, but the US Constitution mentions nothing about marriage so he believes the Constitution provides the Federal government with absolutely no power at all to interfere in marriage or sex.

I'll say it again, the activist/constructionist spectrum is unrelated to a liberal/conservative spectrum just as the color spectrum is unrelated to a height spectrum.

[WolverinesA2]

You're not even making sense. Are Scalia and Thomas strict constructionists or activists? The two terms fall on opposite sides of the spectrum.

SARCASM. Ever heard of it? :rolleyes:

And no, sex is not mentioned in the Constitution. So theoretically, according to people like you, the state of Michigan could criminalize any sexual act other than missionary-position sex between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage and it would be 100% constitutional. Banning interracial marriage would also be constitutional, since marriage isn't mentioned. Of course there's that pesky 14th Amendment that says you have to treat everyone equally, and treating gay people differently from straight people would certainly not adhere to the spirit of the 14th Amendment, now would it?

[mjs]

I don't care to argue for or against specific cases. I'm simply informing you what the terms you use mean, how they inner relate, and the basis for Justice Thomas's decisions. You misrepresented what he said in the case. He never said he agreed with the law; he said it did not violate the US Constitution. You even said no joke to imply you weren't misrepresenting, exaggerating, or using sarcasm.

[WolverinesA2]

You misrepresented what he said in the case. He never said he agreed with the law; he said it did not violate the US Constitution.

And the majority of the Justices disagreed with him. They decided that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

They were right, Scalia and Thomas were wrong.

And he said a lot more than that it didn't violate the U.S. Constitution (which it did). Scalia also used the phrase "homosexual agenda" in his dissent. That is a phrase concocted by the Right Wing, it has no relevance in a legal argument other than to betray Scalia's personal anti-gay bias.

[mjs]

So theoretically, according to people like you, the State of Michigan could criminalize any sexual act other than missionary-position sex between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage and it would be 100% constitutional.

People like me say no. People like Justice Thomas might say its not against the US Constitution. US Supreme Court Justices don't decide cases based on State Constitutions so its hard to say what he'd say is 100% constitutional.

[mjs]

You keep mixing terms and people and ideas and everything else. The other Justices disagreement doesn't mean he didn't say what he said. Likewise, what Scalia says isn't what Thomas says. Jesus, read the damned case if you want to comment on its details. Here's what Thomas said:

If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy”.

[WolverinesA2]

You keep mixing terms and people and ideas and everything else. The other Justices disagreement doesn't mean he didn't say what he said. Likewise, what Scalia says isn't what Thomas says. Jesus, read the damned case if you want to comment on its details. Here's what Thomas said:
If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy”.


Yeah I know what they said. You claim that they were strictly interpreting the Constitution. Well, the Constitution is a bit vague, don't you think? "Liberty" as specified in the 14th Amendment is pretty open-ended and subject to wide interpretation. A majority of justices concluded that consensual sex between adults is a basic human liberty, I must say that I agree. Scalia disagreed. His judicial opinion was based on the premise that sex is NOT a protected liberty and thus not protected under the 14th Amendment. That is very much a conservative, and dare I say, archaic religious view of sex. The fact that both he and Thomas felt the law was unjust does not change the fact that neither of these men decided that "liberty" as specified in the 14th Amendment includes consensual sex between adults. Thomas even went one step furhter and declared that PRIVACY in your own home is not a liberty. At the end of the day, these are opinions, not a direct interpretation of the Constitution. In Scalia's opinion, sex is not a liberty. In Thomas' opinion, privacy is not a liberty. What these opinions are based on, I cannot say, I'm not a mind reader. But I'm willing to bet that their strict religious and conservative philsophies were not divorced from their decision.

[mjs]

They're both conservative with Scalia being quite a bit more conservative. I think Scalia may even be conservative enough that he really believes sex is a right for non-gays only, but he'd never say that directly and thats just my opinion. Constructionist viewpoints are first and foremost in Thomas's decisions. I'm not sure of their religious backgrounds.

Being a left libertarian, I like moderate liberals, moderate conservatives, and moderate constructionists. I think Wickard v Filburn was the worst case ever handed down. But, being a constructionist, I believe that any President can appoint any qualified candidate he wants on any grounds he wants. I don't even know how I'd classify Sotomayer, but I do know she is very well qualified so I say God/Yahweh/Allah/Budda bless.

[vetalalumni]

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.
Poor word selection. You could say this is a simple comparison of Latina (female) versus Caucasian male. This type of comparison regarding analytical aptitude is fundamentally problematic as it refers to potential innate superiorities. That would be a very difficult and uncomfortable discussion. Let us not shy away from it.

*** In the Honorable Judge Sotomayor's defense, she did further qualify beyond simply race and gender when she specifically (only) added the wisdom attribute to the Latina. Wisdom is generally considered acquired or learned (i.e. life experiences), in contrast to innate.

It then becomes:

Wise Latina (female)

versus

Caucasian male


An argument can then be made that all things being equal, adding wisdom to one candidate provides it with a superiority. Still problematic would you agree?

Would attributing a strong mathematical aptitude to one candidate provide superiority? What about attributing artistic or athletic skills to one candidate?

Proactive discussions regarding race (and yes even gender) are still needed in the United States of America. In this case, Americans are simply reacting out of a perceived necessity. Attorney General Holder was correct, we are fearful (until compelled) to openly discuss. We know that people do have opinions and do speak about race in the privacy of their own homes and over backyard fences. Our American exceptionalism for all Americans is at stake.

[Linda from Detroit]

The only reservation I have about this nominee is that she believes her ethnic background makes her more capable than a white male would be. That is something she is going to have to explain. I tend to agree with Justice O'Conner who said that a wise woman and a wise man would come to the same conclusion in interpreting the law. That is the statement of someone who weighs things without prejudice and an individual I would trust. Mr Obamas nominee appears to be lacking in this quality which I believe should be at the core of any judge anywhere, not just on the Supreme Court.

[vetalalumni]

... Justice O'Conner who said that a wise woman and a wise man would come to the same conclusion in interpreting the law.
Did Justice O'Conner literally state same conclusion in interpreting the law? I heard it a little differently. What is your source? How would we then explain dissension among the Justices? Further, two or more non-prejudicial Justices would by definition weighs things without prejudice, and yet they can and do arrive at differing opinions.

The product of the SCOTUS is a single majority opinion, not (necessarily) unanimity. In fact, consistent unanimity, as a goal or not, would indicate a very serious problem.

[ccbatson]

Don't take someone else's word for it...go to the source itself...she makes a racist comment about the superiority of hispanic women (reverse discriminatory), and she states that she believes that judges make policy which means that she is an activist judge. That is just for starters.

[mjs]

Don't take someone else's word for it...go to the source itself...

This is going to become my favorite response to your ramblings.

[ccbatson]

Are you going to start by taking my advice in this case?? Didn't think so.

[mjs]

I don't know what racist comment you refer to so its not possible for me to take your do as I say, not as I do advice. If you want people to go to your source, you have to provide a link to it. Prove you went to the source by having one for the first time since you've been here.

[ccbatson]

THe one where she says that a hispanic women will come to a better conclusion than a white male. Missed that one? If so, you need to broaden your horizons beyond the liberal mainstream media.

[mjs]

Yes. I did miss it. Please educate me with a link so I can be as smart as you and end my sentences with three periods and my questions with two question marks.

[mjs]

What station should I listen to? Come on. Say it. Say it.

[ccbatson]

Rather than a specific link...as you likely miss a great deal if this is any reflection, I will give you a few good search key words.

Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox news.

Enjoy.

OK...I will give you one link to start you out http://marklevinshow.com/home.asp

[mjs]

But, wise one, I thought you said . . .


Don't take someone else's word for it...go to the source itself...

[Flanders]

OK...I will give you one link to start you out http://marklevinshow.com/home.asp

Wow..that enormous popup shamelessly promoting his book, that covers and darkens out nearly Levin's entire webpage, certainly encourages me to shell out for it... :rolleyes:

But hey...if I were only to subscribe to a year's worth of Townhall Magazine (http://magazine.townhall.com/liberty), for the low, low price of $34.95, (60% off the cover price) I could also receive Levin's book, Liberty And Tyranny for free!!

[ccbatson]

Close the advertisement, and follow the links. Not more than 2 clicks to video and audio straight from the horse's mouth.

[firstandten]

Wow..that enormous popup shamelessly promoting his book, that covers and darkens out nearly Levin's entire webpage, certainly encourages me to shell out for it... :rolleyes:

But hey...if I were only to subscribe to a year's worth of Townhall Magazine (http://magazine.townhall.com/liberty), for the low, low price of $34.95, (60% off the cover price) I could also receive Levin's book, Liberty And Tyranny for free!!

And in a couple of weeks Levin's book will be on the NY Times best seller list.

[firstandten]

Poor word selection. You could say this is a simple comparison of Latina (female) versus Caucasian male. This type of comparison regarding analytical aptitude is fundamentally problematic as it refers to potential innate superiorities. That would be a very difficult and uncomfortable discussion. Let us not shy away from it.

*** In the Honorable Judge Sotomayor's defense, she did further qualify beyond simply race and gender when she specifically (only) added the wisdom attribute to the Latina. Wisdom is generally considered acquired or learned (i.e. life experiences), in contrast to innate..

I also believe it was a poor selection of words, however, I also believe she is right.

One must understand the game the Rushes, the Hannities and other right wing talking heads are playing. Any quote or ruling by her is fair game subject to be taken out of context.

The only people that count in this, are the republican senators who can block this appointment. My prediction ... they will jump up and down a couple of times so they can satisfy their base then they will vote to confirm her. Obama has them boxed in this time, and I think Obama would just love it if the republicans gave him a fight on this appointment.

[vetalalumni]

I also believe it was a poor selection of words, however, I also believe she is right.
Thanks for not shying away. If I may be so bold, I'll temporarily focus solely on the first part of your post (quoted directly above).

If the Honorable Judge Sotomayor is correct (in the specific manner you ascribe in the quote above), out of the "... richness of her experiences ..." (wisdom), or innately?

[vetalalumni]

The product of the SCOTUS is a single majority opinion ...Correction. The primary product of the SCOTUS is a majority opinion ...

[firstandten]

Thanks for not shying away. If I may be so bold, I'll temporarily focus solely on the first part of your post (quoted directly above).

If the Honorable Judge Sotomayor is correct (in the specific manner you ascribe in the quote above), out of the "... richness of her experiences ..." (wisdom), or innately?

I believe that hispanics, as well as blacks and other ethnic groups can have a different way of looking at the world, based on life experiences. White males have been on top for so long that they innately feel that there world view is the only one that should count. Her life experiences gives her a perpective on tough issues that comes before the court of appeals (or supreme court) and they won't necessary be in lockstep with the white male justices.
Even though I believe it would be a better decision that could be just my biases talking , what she should have said was different rather than better and let the public put their own value to that statement.

[cheddar bob]

From the NCLR:


The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court was an historic and proud moment for Latinos and the country as a whole. But her ethnicity has proven too much of a temptation for the voices of hate and extremism, who instead of looking at her judicial record have launched a vocal rampage that has reached new heights of absurdity.


Rush Limbaugh, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and others are claiming that Sotomayor is a "reverse racist" because she believes that more judges with diverse backgrounds and experiences would be a good thing for the judicial system. Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies (the "think tank" of Tanton's web of anti-immigrant extremist groups) and his pals at the National Review online are just beside themselves that Judge Sotomayor had the temerity to pronounce her own name correctly. They basically said that if she was a real American, she would butcher it. In an article that appeared in The Hill newspaper, Republican insiders are quoted as being "concerned" that Sotomayor's avowed love of arroz con gandules and other Puerto Rican delicacies will cloud her judicial decision-making.

This one, however, takes the cake:

Former Congressman, failed presidential candidate, and anti-immigrant extremist Tom Tancredo, unable to provide a shred of evidence for his assertion that Judge Sotomayor is a "racist," went off the deep end on CNN, saying Sotomayor belongs to "the Latino KKK without the hoods and nooses."

That's what Tancredo called NCLR-a 40-year-old, national Latino civil rights organization that works with community organizations all over the country to help Latino families achieve the American Dream. NCLR has been recognized by members of Congress and the media, has hosted presidents of both political parties, and works hand in hand with other national civil rights organizations in a bipartisan way to improve the lives of all Americans.

Act now to stop this nonsense.

Raising questions and concerns about Judge Sotomayor's 17-year record on the bench is legitimate. Resorting to outdated stereotypes, defamation of character, and outright falsehoods is not.

Please join us and send a message to Chairman Michael Steele of the RNC, House Minority Leader John Boehner, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell asking them to denounce these statements and restore the nomination process for Judge Sotomayor to a more appropriate and civil discourse.

[ccbatson]

Been on the best seller's list as number 1 for 8 weeks now BTW (or is it 9)?

Poor choice of words? Definitely. A sign of very poor judgement (not a good thing for a potential supreme court "judge")? You betcha.

[mjs]

Been on the best seller's list as number 1 for 8 weeks now BTW (or is it 9)?

Poor choice of words? Definitely.

I agree. I would have said Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" has been the number one seller for eight or nine weeks.

[vetalalumni]

I believe that hispanics, as well as blacks and other ethnic groups can have a different way of looking at the world, based on life experiences... Her life experiences gives her a perpective on tough issues that comes before the court of appeals (or supreme court)...
Wisdom, not innate. Hence your further assertion...

... what she should have said was different rather than better and let the public put their own value to that statement.
Ambiguity has saved many a position.


Even though I believe it would be a better decision that could be just my biases talking...
Potentially a (slightly?) different argument. Weakened by admitting it could be biased. Understandable however because it preserves personal biases (a root value).

[Detroitej72]

Don't take someone else's word for it...go to the source itself...she makes a racist comment about the superiority of hispanic women (reverse discriminatory), and she states that she believes that judges make policy which means that she is an activist judge. That is just for starters.

Since the right likes to talk about racist and sexist comments, here's one from their convicted felon hero, G. Gordon Liddy, as he rambles on about his racist feelings: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/

Yet I'm sure they would welcome him on the Supreme Court, as he is one of their own.

[ccbatson]

Back to the old 2 wrongs make a right ploy? Is Liddy nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court?

Can the libs on this board at least try to make a coherent argument? It is too easy to shoot down and less fun the way you guys play it now.

[vetalalumni]

According to Manuel Miranda's logic, the Honorable Judge Sonia Sotomayor should have no problems being confirmed.

NbDPuVSb12Y

Go to the 1:44 mark to hear Manuel Miranda's statement.


... Hispanics think just like everyone else. We're not like African-Americans, and we think just like everybody else.

[ccbatson]

Brilliant compound reverse racism. Why do the liberals elevate race to this level of importance? Isn't that racism itself?

[vetalalumni]

Why do the liberals elevate race to this level of importance?
This is an attempt to ridicule or minimize the reality of the unfortunate race factor in the USA. This is the vintage argument that supposes whether any person or group could or would make racism worse by exposing it. Stated in the vernacular, "don't rock the boat", or worse, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". The latter carrying the extra peril of denying racism is something broken.

As far as elevating "race to this level of importance", ask that question to those historical figures in positions of leadership and power in the USA ever since the middle passage. It was of a supreme "level of importance" in the creation and development of the USA, and all the way through and beyond the civil rights era. Today, it is often of supreme importance to prematurely sweep race under the rug and claim it dead ("Why ... elevate race to this level of importance?"), as if that simple utterance would suffice.


Brilliant compound reverse racism.

Reverse racism is misused terminology.
Two or more what?


When responding to this particular post, please be specific. Quoting the exact assertion you are responding to or refuting helps your audience follow your arguments. An educated person such as yourself would surely know that articulated detail is important. Your oft ambiguous responses are duly noted. And the ensuing frustration upon the reader, which you are so proud of, is temporary. Some of us, maybe most of us, would prefer to respectfully disagree with you after dialogue than pity or mock your scattered and unrefined arguments.

[Lorax]

Rather than a specific link...as you likely miss a great deal if this is any reflection, I will give you a few good search key words.

Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox news.

Enjoy.

OK...I will give you one link to start you out http://marklevinshow.com/home.asp

You would listen to Snark Levin, and offer IT as a source. How typically fascist.

You probably love Squeal Boortz and Michael Weener Savage as well. :eek:

[Detroitej72]

Lorax, I suggest you read some of the excellent books written by Thom Hartman. His books are great references of the corrupt, morally bankrupt right wing agenda.

[Lorax]

Lorax, I suggest you read some of the excellent books written by Thom Hartman. His books are great references of the corrupt, morally bankrupt right wing agenda.

My favorite is "Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight", Thom's screed on oil and how we're near the end of it.

(this in no way is a reference to what eminates from Batcrap's rearend):eek:

Thom is truly a gifter writer, and a great talk show host. His "Brunch With Bernie" segments on Fridays is a great conversation with our favorite socialist senator, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

He and Dennis Kucinich are the ones who should be calling the shots in Washington- in a better world!

[firstandten]

My favorite is "Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight", Thom's screed on oil and how we're near the end of it.

(this in no way is a reference to what eminates from Batcrap's rearend):eek:

Thom is truly a gifter writer, and a great talk show host. His "Brunch With Bernie" segments on Fridays is a great conversation with our favorite socialist senator, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

He and Dennis Kucinich are the ones who should be calling the shots in Washington- in a better world!
Thom is a brilliant talk show host its just too bad thats he's on 60 stations and Rush is on about 10 times that many

[Pam]

As far as elevating "race to this level of importance", ask that question to those historical figures in positions of leadership and power in the USA ever since the middle passage.


And before. (See history of relations with the Native Americans.)

[Lorax]

Thom is a brilliant talk show host its just too bad thats he's on 60 stations and Rush is on about 10 times that many

We can thank Reagan and Clinton for that one. Clear Channel Communications was allowed to own all media in any give market, nationwide.

When you control the message, you control the nation. This still needs to be fixed.

We need the Fairness Doctrine restored and enforced.

[vetalalumni]

Correct Pam.

[ccbatson]

Thom who? How many voluntary listeners does he have?

[Detroitej72]

Thom who? How many voluntary listeners does he have?

Neo-cons and the fringe right will have a hard time listening to him, he actually gives you facts and history lessons.

I wouldn't expect the party of ditto heads to comprehend his articulate sentences and his lack of sensationalist sound bits.

[Jimaz]

The War Over the Courts (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showpost.php?p=30239&postcount=251)

[Lorax]

Thom who? How many voluntary listeners does he have?

Voluntary listeners? As if any of Thom Hartmann's listeners don't have a choice in the matter?

They choose to listen because he's intelligent, thoughtful, and has gotten it right on so many levels.

Unlike the fascist right dumbasses like Slush Grimball and Yawn Manatee. :eek:

[firstandten]

The only reservation I have about this nominee is that she believes her ethnic background makes her more capable than a white male would be. That is something she is going to have to explain. I tend to agree with Justice O'Conner who said that a wise woman and a wise man would come to the same conclusion in interpreting the law. That is the statement of someone who weighs things without prejudice and an individual I would trust. Mr Obamas nominee appears to be lacking in this quality which I believe should be at the core of any judge anywhere, not just on the Supreme Court.


This is the reason I think Sotomayor is correct in her assessment. One views the world thru the lens of his or hers experience which much is based on the times one is living in.

One could have a decision like Plessy v Ferguson or a decision like Brown v Board of Education with the help of Thurgood Marshall who was chief counsel for the plaintiffs overturned Plessy v Ferguson. Both courts were all white males, both felt they were interpeting the constitution , but came to very different conclusions.

So Sotomayor could also come to a very different conclusion based on her being Latina and the times but that doesn't make her a racist and it doesn't make her unqualified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

[Detroitej72]

One could have a decision like Plessy v Ferguson or a decision like Brown v Board of Education with the help of Thurgood Marshall who was chief counsel for the plaintiffs overturned Plessy v Ferguson. Both courts were all white males, both felt they were interpeting the constitution , but came to very different conclusions.

So Sotomayor could also come to a very different conclusion based on her being Latina and the times but that doesn't make her a racist and it doesn't make her unqualified.

Excellent post.

Unfortunately, the right wont take the time to comprehend that logic, since it would legitimize her as a competent justice.

They only seek to assassinate her character, since she isn't towing their party line.

[ccbatson]

I just saw the footage of Sotamayor where she proudly admits that she was unqualified and achieved her position via affirmative action...sobering.

Did Clarence Thomas use this unjust and unethical liberal loophole to accomplish what he accomplished?

[Lorax]

I just saw the footage of Sotamayor where she proudly admits that she was unqualified and achieved her position via affirmative action...sobering.

Did Clarence Thomas use this unjust and unethical liberal loophole to accomplish what he accomplished?

No, but George Tush did to get where he did, it's called Head Start.

[rb336]

I just saw the footage of Sotamayor where she proudly admits that she was unqualified and achieved her position via affirmative action...sobering.

Did Clarence Thomas use this unjust and unethical liberal loophole to accomplish what he accomplished?

yes, he stated in his confirmation hearings that he got where he was via affirmative action policies, after he was cornered on his anti affirmative action positions

and where, exactly, did you see that footage?

yes, she said AA got her into college, but the standardized tests being used back then have been shown in numerous studies to be heavily culturally biased. there were questions in their that marked an answer wrong if they thought an apartment was equivalent to a home for pete's sake.

She graduated with honors and was extremely successful in her college career, proof that the tests were -- wrong, just as you are

[ccbatson]

Check Hannity's site for the video/audio.

Too bad regarding Clarence Thomas...another victim of Affirmative Action. Carrying doubts to the grave having been robbed of pride and dignity by big brother liberal policy.

[firstandten]

Check Hannity's site for the video/audio.

Too bad regarding Clarence Thomas...another victim of Affirmative Action. Carrying doubts to the grave having been robbed of pride and dignity by big brother liberal policy.

Clarence robbed himself of pride and dignity by being a tool for the RW. Here is a man who got into the schools he did because of AA. and did very well for himself academically. Now he talks like he's ashamed of that fact and works to deny other minorities the opportunities he got. Clarence Thomas should be the poster child on why AA works, its just a shame he is on the court and I hope the next appointment will be an African-American since we don't have any on the court now. All we have is a man with a black face.

[Lorax]

Rather than a specific link...as you likely miss a great deal if this is any reflection, I will give you a few good search key words.

Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox news.

Enjoy.

OK...I will give you one link to start you out http://marklevinshow.com/home.asp

Let's see, take a can of tuna, add peanut butter, run it through the meat grinder, add menthol cough drops and a gallon of lukewarm grapefruit juice.....:eek:

Sounds like a recipe for fascist frijoles- hang on to your vomit bags, and strap on your drool cups. And away we go....!:eek:

[Lorax]

Check Hannity's site for the video/audio.

Too bad regarding Clarence Thomas...another victim of Affirmative Action. Carrying doubts to the grave having been robbed of pride and dignity by big brother liberal policy.


Sending such a fascist political hack to his grave with doubts as to his abilities and how he got there.......priceless.

[ccbatson]

Along with Sotomayor and all of the other victims.

You really need to get a grip on the definition of the word Fascist that you keep throwing around...you haven't a clue as to what it means.

[ccbatson]

Along with Sotomayor and all of the other victims.

You really need to get a grip on the definition of the word Fascist that you keep throwing around...you haven't a clue as to what it means.

[Lorax]

Along with Sotomayor and all of the other victims.

You really need to get a grip on the definition of the word Fascist that you keep throwing around...you haven't a clue as to what it means.

You really don't have to capitalize it, eventhough I know you secretly think it deserves the honor.

I'm not allowing you to draw me or anyone else into your twisted world of shape-shifting the meaning of words.

You need a better grip on syntax and the meaning of such words.

[ccbatson]

That is your retort Lorax? That is it?

[Lorax]

That is your retort Lorax? That is it?

Back at ya.

[ccbatson]

Is that the same as "I am rubber, and you are glue...etc"?

[Lorax]

Is that the same as "I am rubber, and you are glue...etc"?


More like:

Oil & Water
Sand & Sandals
Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthau
Superman & Kryptonite (I'd be Superman in this scenario):D

[rb336]

Along with Sotomayor and all of the other victims.

You really need to get a grip on the definition of the word Fascist that you keep throwing around...you haven't a clue as to what it means.

considering that we have shown you to be 100% wrong on that definition, that is incredibly funny

[ccbatson]

You have? When? Where? Which thread? Which posts? By what standard?

These are the basic requirments for making a case for your position Rb.

[Detroitej72]

You have? When? Where? Which thread? Which posts? By what standard?

These are the basic requirments for making a case for your position Rb.

There is really no point in showing you the proof, as like in the past, you just ignore it.

But thats OK, I enjoy sparing with you, it can be fun and sometimes educational, as you force me to back up my claims and that enables me to better articulate my arguments.

[Lorax]

The only thing Batts does for me is give me acid reflux. :mad:

[rb336]

You have? When? Where? Which thread? Which posts? By what standard?

These are the basic requirments for making a case for your position Rb.


um, bats, everyone here remembers those. if you like, go to the old site and look in any of the dozens of threads where you mention the term. and when, exactly, using your own standards, have you ever posted a single support of any comment you have ever made that wasn't nearly immediately contradicted by actual facts?

[bailey]

I think it's pretty telling that Hannity, Beck and Bats are relying up one line...really one word in a speech from 2001 to trump up the outrage, yet they ignore 3000 opinions over a almost 20 year judicial record. A record, that even the wall street journal, calls "within the democratic mainstream". One in which she upheld precedent...unless there wasnt one. Ruled relatively conservatively. Deferred to elected officials instead of changing laws by judicial fiat. And is broadly regarded as exceedingly qualified jurist.

I know the birthers want to be outraged at anything Obama does, but the constant caterwauling and teeth gnashing simply results in less and less influence. But by all means, keep at it. The adults are in charge now.

[jiminnm]

The majority of commentaries I've read from law professors and lawyers closer to the matter than I indicate that there is no profound legal analysis in Sotomayor's written case opinions and little to distinguish her from other possible candidates (and, perhaps, more moderate than some expect). I think we should looking for the best legal minds to be on the Supreme Court instead of looking for someone to "represent" a certain group on the Supreme Court or give the impression that certain seats belong to certain groups. Even Joe Biden, our illustrious VP, once said that Clarence Thomas only got on the Court because he was black. It may well be that Sotomayor will get on the Court because she is Hispanic and female.

Personally, I disagree with her statements that minority women will reach better legal decisions than white males (which she has made a number of times). If she really believes that, then she may lack the ability to decide cases on their legal merits and substitute some other determinant than the law to reach her opinion.

All that said, there are consequences to winning and losing Presidential elections. One of the consequences of winning is getting to nominate Supreme Court justices. Unfortunately, the nomination process has become just another opportunity for political battle.

[firstandten]

The majority of commentaries I've read from law professors and lawyers closer to the matter than I indicate that there is no profound legal analysis in Sotomayor's written case opinions and little to distinguish her from other possible candidates (and, perhaps, more moderate than some expect). I think we should looking for the best legal minds to be on the Supreme Court instead of looking for someone to "represent" a certain group on the Supreme Court or give the impression that certain seats belong to certain groups. Even Joe Biden, our illustrious VP, once said that Clarence Thomas only got on the Court because he was black. It may well be that Sotomayor will get on the Court because she is Hispanic and female..

I think the same case could be made for some of the other Supreme court judges before they got on. VP Biden is right Clarence Thomas only got on because he was black, but more importantly he was the only black reliable conservative vote Bush senior felt comfortable with. That doesn't even make him the most qualified black. The whole process is so politicized that qualified is only part of the entire criteria used to select supreme court judges. Sotomayor is been on the SCOTUS track for years with republican appointments and votes for lower federal courts, why now is her qualifications coming up for questions?


Personally, I disagree with her statements that minority women will reach better legal decisions than white males (which she has made a number of times). If she really believes that, then she may lack the ability to decide cases on their legal merits and substitute some other determinant than the law to reach her opinion...

Please read this entire thread. That quote should be taken in context and I along with other posters address that .



All that said, there are consequences to winning and losing Presidential elections. One of the consequences of winning is getting to nominate Supreme Court justices. Unfortunately, the nomination process has become just another opportunity for political battle.

You are right, however if you are a narrow minded political idealogue like the Bushes, you don't ever want them getting many opportunities to appoint supreme court judges.

[jiminnm]

I think the same case could be made for some of the other Supreme court judges before they got on. VP Biden is right Clarence Thomas only got on because he was black, but more importantly he was the only black reliable conservative vote Bush senior felt comfortable with. That doesn't even make him the most qualified black. The whole process is so politicized that qualified is only part of the entire criteria used to select supreme court judges. Sotomayor is been on the SCOTUS track for years with republican appointments and votes for lower federal courts, why now is her qualifications coming up for questions?

I expect that the fact of Thomas' conservatism was for the social conservatives in the Republican Party, especially after Robert Bork was denied a few years earlier. Bush 1 appointed many others judges that dissatisfied leading Republicans. Being conservative, however, does not make one a lesser qualified candidate. Under the standards that now seem to exist, Thomas was clearly qualified.

Sotomayor was initially appointed to Fed District Ct by Bush 1, but Clinton appointed her to the Fed Appellate Court and she was approved by the Senate 67-29. The talk at that time was that the Democrats (not Republicans) were fast tracking her to the SupCt.


Please read this entire thread. That quote should be taken in context and I along with other posters address that.

I don't need to read that in this thread, I read her speeches and writings in which she made the statements.


You are right, however if you are a narrow minded political idealogue like the Bushes, you don't ever want them getting many opportunities to appoint supreme court judges.

Bush 2 is far more conservative than Bush 1. If you look at the judicial appointments that Bush 1 made, there are very few "reliable" conservatives among them (start with the man Sotomayor is nominated to replace). Also, no one should be surprised when a President nominates judges consistent with his/her legal philosophies. The two justices nominated by Bush 2 are conservative, but clearly qualified to be there.

[bailey]

The two justices nominated by Bush 2 are conservative, but clearly qualified to be there

...don't forget Harriet Miers. CLEARLY she was the most qualified. she was just railroaded by the liberals.

I guess I'm having trouble with the premise or assumption that Sotomayor ISNT qualified. Princeton and Yale...20 years on the Federal Bench...associate professor...etc etc. who is the mystery candidate that was "passed over" here? Why is she NOT qualified?

[firstandten]

I expect that the fact of Thomas' conservatism was for the social conservatives in the Republican Party, especially after Robert Bork was denied a few years earlier. Bush 1 appointed many others judges that dissatisfied leading Republicans. Being conservative, however, does not make one a lesser qualified candidate. Under the standards that now seem to exist, Thomas was clearly qualified..

Qualification was never the issue, I make an assumption that anyone the POTUS appoints is qualified at some level. I mean you don't have to even be a judge to be on the supreme court. I dislike Thomas political beliefs but I never said he wasn't qualified.

The same statement you make " Being conservative, however, does not make one a lesser qualified candidate." you can make by inserting liberal. It depends on what you consider as being qualified


don't need to read that in this thread, I read her speeches and writings in which she made the statements..

Then you miss the point of that discussion. The interpetation of the constitution is not static. It does depend on the life experiences (which many times is based on gender and race) and the times in which those judges live in. The ability to decide cases on there legal merits and her being female or hispanic or living in the 21st century are not mutually exclusive.

If that weren't the case then you wouldn't have Plessy v Ferguson and then 100 years later Brown v Board of Education


Bush 2 is far more conservative than Bush 1. If you look at the judicial appointments that Bush 1 made, there are very few "reliable" conservatives among them (start with the man Sotomayor is nominated to replace). Also, no one should be surprised when a President nominates judges consistent with his/her legal philosophies. The two justices nominated by Bush 2 are conservative, but clearly qualified to be there.

Again I don't argue that point but don't think for a monent these conservative supreme court judges make decisions independent of there life experiences and/ or political leanings.

So all in all whats the difference? And why is Sotomayor not qualified ? I know you didn't come right out and say it but I maintain your points were heading in that direction.

[Islandman]

There is a lot of resentment towards Puerto Ricans, as many think they are "better" than other hispanics due to their automatic U.S. citizenship.

As a Puerto Rican for all of my life, this is complete BS. Never once have I heard or felt anything of the sort, and don't know any of my family or acquiaintances that feel this way.

Do you have anything to back this up? Or did you mean to say there is resentment among other Hispanic groups? That would make more sense.

[sarge]

I'm a former spanish linguist who served with a lot of hispanics from all over the place and I've never heard of anyone resenting PR's for thinking they are better then others. Nor have I ever heard of anyone complaining PR's THOUGHT they were better than others. I knew a Spanish priest who was assigned to Nueva Jork who used to yell about the PR's he had to deal with back in the day because that made up much of his church. I also remember a lot of the subgroups not being so fond of the other subgroups, i.e. Mexican v. Cuban v. PR v. Central America v. South America, but I don't recall PR's being any more or less favored. (or disliked!)

[ccbatson]

Rb...you felt so guilty about squirming out of the challenge to substantiate your comment that you did, not once, but twice? Does that help you somehow? It doesn't make your original case any stronger, that is for sure.

[rb336]

Rb...you felt so guilty about squirming out of the challenge to substantiate your comment that you did, not once, but twice? Does that help you somehow? It doesn't make your original case any stronger, that is for sure.

why should i bother? i have before, you are simply too lazy to go to the old forum and look it up

oh and bats, i responded in 1 post, 107 in this thread. showing your math skills again?

[ccbatson]

Oops, mistook you for DetroiteJ72 Rb...You only tried squirm your way out of the debate once, as you just pointed out...I stand corrected.

[vetalalumni]

The interpetation of the constitution is not static. It does depend on the life experiences (which many times is based on gender and race) and the times in which those judges live in. [The ability to decide cases on there legal merits] and [her being female or hispanic or living in the 21st century] are not mutually exclusive.

If that weren't the case then you wouldn't have Plessy v Ferguson and then 100 years later Brown v Board of Education
Continuing the original thread topic, the above quote is a simple, good argument and very defensible. In the context given in the argument, mutual exclusivity elements would be inappropriate set exclusionary factors such as entitlement (era) or supremacist (gender or race) theories (by virtue of being absent from the "The ability to decide cases on there legal merits" set). Elementary set theory.

[ccbatson]

We all have life experiences which we consider rich. It is arrogant and racist to believe that one racial/ethnic group is superior to another.

[rb336]

Oops, mistook you for DetroiteJ72 Rb...You only tried squirm your way out of the debate once, as you just pointed out...I stand corrected.

didn't squirm away from anything, already won this handily many moons ago. if you care to relive your past failures, go right on ahead. I see no need to do so

[ccbatson]

You pointed out your response in #107. This takes the form of a tacit admission of the premise that you were squirming.

Sort of like saying "no, I didn't steal 2 widgets, just the one, see (in 107)?"

[rb336]

you're goofy today, aren't you?

[ccbatson]

Well, yes, I am having a bit of silly fun with this one. I am surprised you noticed.

[bailey]

Well, of course, now we see what all the histrionics were really all about......

Nearly a month after President Barack Obama picked her for the Supreme Court, Republican senators say Sonia Sotomayor (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/politico/pl_politico/storytext/23991/32446930/SIG=11m2l28bv/*http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23953.html) isn’t serving as the political lightning rod some in their party had hoped she would be.
“She doesn’t have the punch out there in terms of fundraising and recruiting, I think — at least so far,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who most likely will be elected as the No. 4 Republican in Senate leadership this week.
The calculus could certainly change when Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings begin July 13. But the Republican senators’ initial review of Sotomayor’s record, together with the meetings they’ve had with her, have left them doubting that she’ll be controversial enough to help them or hurt the Democrats heading into the 2010 elections.-Politico.com


Speaking of Senator Thune...why is it he is taking over as the #4 in the senate? Oh yeah, Sen Ensign had a little problem protecting the sanctity of his own marriage. I wonder if Sen. Ensign will do what he demanded Sen Craig and President Clinton do when their dalliances were revealed?

[firstandten]

I don't know what the TPON is talking about. They still have a 5-4 advantage. BTW check some of the cases and see how many 5-4 decisions there are.
Once one of the RW block of 5 retires then its time for the TPON to start worrying, but until then they still have control

[ccbatson]

Didn't he (Ensign) already do that (resign his position)?

[rb336]

not unless it happened in the very early hours

[bailey]

Didn't he (Ensign) already do that (resign his position)?

He resigned his leadership position NOT from the Senate.

Ensign's statement about Sen. Larry Craig and his "wide stance" scandal on the issue of whether or not Craig should resign

I wouldn't put myself hopefully in that kind of position, but if I was in a position like that, that's what I would do. He's going to have to answer that for himself.
(interesting sidebar there was that at the time he made that statement...he was already schtupping the wife of his "close friend".)

Ensign in a 1998 Debate win Harry Reid...

Ensign repeated his call for President Clinton's resignation in light of his admitted affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Reid called the affair immoral but said he would "keep an open mind" and let the process proceed before deciding whether to impeach Clinton.

[Detroitej72]

So we have learned Ensign is a hypocrite. What a shock!:eek:

[ccbatson]

Craig's actions were quite a bit more dramatic and shocking. However, I am convinced (by the libs here) that Ensign, in order to be consistent with his prior stated values and with what he represented himself as upon winning election, should resign.

[Lorax]

Ensign needs to Resign.

But, like the rest of the buggered up fascist right, he had his meeting with Satan before breakfast this morning and decided if Larry Craig could bunker-down, a la Dick Cheney, he could too.

Shame his little Rethugnican cheerleader meeting he was suppose to chair will have to be postponed due to his recurring bimbo eruptions.

Or, as Nixon's supporters said during his re-election campaign: "Don't change Dicks in the middle of a screw, vote for Nixon in '72!":eek:

[ccbatson]

And now Sanford...what is it with Politicians? No loyalty to family, to vows? Sickening.

[Detroitej72]

And now Sanford...what is it with Politicians? No loyalty to family, to vows? Sickening.

I think it has a lot to do with their egos and the sense of power.

[Lorax]

And now Sanford...what is it with Politicians? No loyalty to family, to vows? Sickening.

And now Sanford...what is it with Rethugnican politicians? No loyalty, except to themselves. Sickening.

[Detroitej72]

Repugs don't have a monopoly, remember Spitzer in New York and Blago in Illinois.

Like I said, many politicians seem to have a God complex and feel they are above morals and marital vows.

[Lorax]

For every buggered up Democrat there are three Repugnicans.

Further to the point, it's the hypocricy of the Repugnicans that stands out as truly breathtaking.

I thought this was the "family values" crowd? Democrats don't pretend to be anything more than what they are, and don't hide behind such fundamentalist labels.

And here's the running list of Rethugnican Infidelity from the last 15 years. And these are the ones we know about.

Livingston
Haggard
Swaggert
Bakker
McCain
Giuliani
Gingrich
Foley
Vitter
Craig
Ensign
Sanford

A veritable rogue's gallery of Rethugnican miscreants who's sanctimonius self righteousness is only outweighed by their hypocricy.

As a flaming liberal, I could care less about what they do, and to whom they do it.

Just don't open you mouth about Democrats being "just as bad" when they are not nearly as bad, or as great in number.

And think twice before wagging your fingers at people like Bill Clinton.

[bailey]

Repugs don't have a monopoly, remember Spitzer in New York and Blago in Illinois.

Like I said, many politicians seem to have a God complex and feel they are above morals and marital vows.

The distinction is that the republicans continually run on the platform that they are the final arbiters of what is good and moral in society. Sanford, vitter, ensign, craig, ..et al.. all took hardline stances against gay marriage, gay adoption, civil unions...etc in order to "preserve the sanctity of marriage". It wasn't just a side issue for these guys, it was a central pillar of their political being. Their "morality" on that issue guided thier entire process. If they are so cavalier about a central pillar, what else are they lying about?

[4real]

I don't want a bigot who uses her leftist philosophy to guide her decision making on the bench.
We need someone to follow the constitution and prior case law, not a bigoted social engineer.

[firstandten]

I don't want a bigot who uses her leftist philosophy to guide her decision making on the bench.
We need someone to follow the constitution and prior case law, not a bigoted social engineer.

Oh ! she is, why don't you prove that statement.

and while you're at it how come the 5 RWers on the bench aren't social engineers themselves

[Detroitej72]

Well, that right wing porn lover, Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter in the vote on the illegal strip search of the high school student who was thought to have that harmful drug ibuprofen hidden on her body. Wonder what he was thinking?:eek:

[ccbatson]

Detroitej72...nice arbitrary and hateful allegations against Clarence Thomas.....you should be proud.

[Detroitej72]

Detroitej72...nice arbitrary and hateful allegations against Clarence Thomas.....you should be proud.

How is saying someone likes porn considered hateful? Unless you feel porn is evil... Its not my cup of tea, but I say what one does is their own business as long as its not child porn.

Besides, I don't recall him ever contradicting those allegations.

[Lorax]

Yeah, why is porn evil and hateful?

Typical reaction from the prudish rightwing. LOL!!

Batts and John Ashcroft should get together and cover the "naughty bits" on the marble statues at the Justice Department:eek:.

[ccbatson]

I am sorry, I didn't realize that this was a term of endearment and that, therefore, Detroitej72 must really like Clarence Thomas and his ideology to bestow such a high compliment on him....Give it a rest, we all know what you mean.

[firstandten]

Earlier in this thread you had people questioning Sotomayor, saying she won't interpet the constitution correctly because she a liberal, Latina, she's not qualified and on and on. People saying I want someone who interpet the constitution and not make up for past injustices.

Well now we have good old Clarence who has now gone so far out in "right" field its not funny.

Just this week he has been the 1 in two 8 to 1 decisions. Can you believe that ?

Even his RW buddies on the court don't dare go out there as far as he has.

He was the only one to vote for overturning the 1965 civil rights act.

And he was the only one to vote for the illegal strip search of that 13 y/o girl.

Some of you have said he may be a porn lover and you are probably right. I bet he got his jollies off reading the dissenting opinion that his clerk wrote.

We now know Anita Hill wasn't just a scorned woman trying to keep a brother down. Old Clarence did sexually harass her.

Clarence is an embarassment to black folks everywhere. He is full of self-hate and I would love for him to retire better yet I would like to see him impeached.

As long as you have someone as rotten as Clarence on the SCOTUS don't give me an ounce of crap about Sotomayor.

[Lorax]

Say this with a southern drawl:

"Excuuuuse me, Ms. Heel, can you explain ta us tha meanin' of Long Dong Silvah?"

[ccbatson]

Nah...Lorax isn't racist, not at all.

[Detroitej72]

I am sorry, I didn't realize that this was a term of endearment and that, therefore, Detroitej72 must really like Clarence Thomas and his ideology to bestow such a high compliment on him....Give it a rest, we all know what you mean.

Tell me, what did I mean? You said I was being hateful, how so?

Do you think you are not committing the same crime when you've called Obama evil and a lier and label Chavez as "his pal"? Or, do you think you are above reproach on these matters because you feel you are a person of such elite status?

[Lorax]

Nah...Lorax isn't racist, not at all.


Where do you get racist in this? :confused:

[vetalalumni]

Senate confirmation hearings are set to begin tomorrow morning. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) will press Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor (on her record) during the proceedings, and promises not to be nasty. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6526169.html

[Detroitej72]

I love how the right is making a big deal that 60% of her rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court. They use this as proof of her "activist" rulings.

What they forget to mention is that she only had something like 6 cases go to the S.C. and that Samuel Alito had 100%(4) of his cases overturned before becoming a justice. Was he being an activist?

[ccbatson]

How and why they were turned over is important.

[Lorax]

The only activist judges on the Supreme Court are the Rethuglicans, who are taking up the issue of corporations again wanting to be given the same rights as individuals. Roberts agreed to hear it yet again. :eek:

[ccbatson]

Again, a pejorative from Lorax without even one example. For Sotamayor, the most recent example...the NJ fireman/Ricci case....ball's in your court Lorax.

[Detroitej72]

The Ricci case was a unanimous ruling by all the judges, and was based on past precedence. If you examine all her rulings, you see that the are very much middle of the road, hardly far left as the ditto heads would have you believe.

Most liberals feel she is too conservative and want a left's version of Scalia to balance things out.

[ccbatson]

Until she got a hold of it and suppressed the minority opinion from customary publication.

[vetalalumni]

Brilliant compound reverse racism.






Reverse racism is misused terminology.
Two or more what?


Any counters?

[ccbatson]

Misused how?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

Seems to be used quite correctly to me.

[vetalalumni]

ccbatson, for future reference, please understand if I neglect to engage in any real discussion with you. Let me say this, I've sometimes enjoyed reading your views. You are not on my automated 'Ignore List' because it sort of breaks the discussion flow.

[Lorax]

Again, a pejorative from Lorax without even one example. For Sotamayor, the most recent example...the NJ fireman/Ricci case....ball's in your court Lorax.

She only agreed with the lower court's decision, she herself did not preside over it. Stop carpetbombing the dialogue with non-issues.

[ccbatson]

She did pass judgement, she did suppress the dissenting opinion from being published, and HER DECISION was reversed and criticized by the supreme court.

How is it that the Supreme court would act as such, naming Sotamayor specifically, if she "only agreed with the lower court's decision"? Answer, she did much more than what you claim.

[Lorax]

She did pass judgement, she did suppress the dissenting opinion from being published, and HER DECISION was reversed and criticized by the supreme court.

How is it that the Supreme court would act as such, naming Sotamayor specifically, if she "only agreed with the lower court's decision"? Answer, she did much more than what you claim.

What planet are you living on? Sotomayor DID NOT RULE on this case. She merely sided with the municipality. No smoking gun, here, Sparky, just you feverish imagination. :eek:

[ccbatson]

Why did the Supreme Court specifically rebuff her then?

[vetalalumni]

The Supreme Court begins its new term Monday.


New term and new justice for nation's higher court (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_NEW_TERM)
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Justice David Souter never danced the salsa in public. Justice John Paul Stevens doesn't sing in karaoke bars. And Chief Justice John Roberts hasn't thrown out the first pitch at Yankee Stadium.

But that was yesterday's Supreme Court. The newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, has done all three of those things - in the less than two months since she replaced Souter on the court.

While the Supreme Court is all about the law, personalities matter. As the court begins its new term Monday, the justices will be dealing not only with the cases in front of them but with a wild card: how Sotomayor and her effervescence may change things.

"It's like when you were little and a new kid joined the class," said Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University. "There was always a little air of excitement or anticipation because you didn't know how it would change the dynamic."

The earliest indications are that she is unlikely to affect the outcome or alter the terms of debate in two of the high-profile cases that probably will dominate the term: a challenge to limits on corporate spending in political campaigns and a lawsuit seeking to strike down local handgun bans in the Chicago area.

In both cases, conservative majorities that prevailed in earlier cases appear solid. Sotomayor probably will side with the court's liberals in dissent from decisions in favor of gun rights and loosening campaign finance restrictions, as the now-retired Souter did.

But other disputes loom and, to cite just one area, Sotomayor will be watched closely to see whether her past as a prosecutor makes her more sympathetic to law enforcement in criminal cases. Unlike her colleagues, Sotomayor also has experience as a trial judge.

The criminal docket includes challenges to handing out life sentences with no chance of parole to people younger than age 18. These cases follow the court's recent decision to bar the execution of people who committed murder as juveniles.

The court has scheduled arguments in First Amendment cases over the separation of church and state involving a cross in the Mojave National Preserve in California that serves as a World War I memorial, and free speech issues in the government's efforts to criminalize the production of videos of dog fights and other acts of animal cruelty.

The justices themselves say any change in the court matters.

"It's a new court. When I was trying jury cases, which is usually 12, if a juror had to be replaced because one was ill or something ... it's just a different dynamic. It was a different jury. And it's the same way here. This will be a very different court," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in an interview for C-SPAN's new documentary on the court.

Sotomayor is the third new justice on the court since 2005, when Roberts was confirmed as the first of President George W. Bush's two nominees. Justice Samuel Alito came on board early in 2006.

For the moment, Roberts and the other conservatives - Alito and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - continue to appear ascendant, joined by Kennedy, a swing voter who sides more often than not with the conservatives in cases with a clear ideological division.

Their biggest show of strength could come in the campaign finance case. It could result in the reversal of decades-old restrictions on corporate and union spending in elections and demonstrate the political importance of Bush's appointments.

"It's an enormous test for Chief Justice Roberts and the conservatives on the court. Dramatic changes in the law are being urged upon them," said Doug Kendall, leader of the liberal-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center public interest group that closely follows the court.

Indications are that more change in the makeup of the court could come soon. Justice John Paul Stevens, who turns 90 in April, acknowledged last month that he has so far hired fewer law clerks than usual for next year, a move widely considered to be a signal that he is at least contemplating retiring.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 76, appears well after her surgery for pancreatic cancer in February and has said she plans to serve into her early 80s. But the long-term prognosis for pancreatic cancer is poor.

The retirement of either justice would give President Barack Obama, who named Sotomayor, another nominee, although the ideological balance of the court probably would not change. For that to happen, one of the conservatives would have to leave during Obama's presidency. None of the current conservative justice has even hinted at retirement.

Deanne Maynard, a Supreme Court advocate at the Morrison and Foerster law firm and herself a former high court law clerk, said any short list of prospective nominees would include women, even if Stevens and not Ginsburg retires first.

"It's very intriguing, to me at least, that there'd be three women on the court," Maynard said.

---

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

[ccbatson]

Replacing another liberal is slightly reassuring...if we can just hold out until 2012 and Obama's exit.

[vetalalumni]

The Supreme Court: Home To America's Highest Court (http://supremecourt.c-span.org/) on c-span --> http://supremecourt.c-span.org/


Beginning Sunday October 4 at 9pm and continuing through that entire week--each night at 9pm -- C-SPAN will present groundbreaking and unique programs on the Supreme Court. Featuring our original documentary production "The Supreme Court: Home to America's Highest Court" as well as an unprecedented collection of original interviews with all 11 living current and former Supreme Court Justices, Supreme Court week will offer viewers a rare window into the Supreme Court and those that serve there. Here's our line-up of programs:

"The Supreme Court: Home To America's Highest Court"

[ccbatson]

Remember what the majority ideology is...for now, thankfully.