• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,082
Reaction score
33,411
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.
You can expect a lot more of this with a Clinton presidency, a lot more. She'll find the most leftwing radical possible.
 
You can expect a lot more of this with a Clinton presidency, a lot more. She'll find the most leftwing radical possible.

Should probably confirm Merrick Garland while you have the chance then huh?
 
Should probably confirm Merrick Garland while you have the chance then huh?

Yup. Thank you, GOP electorate. Well done.


Joker.jpg
 
Last edited:
Justice Sotomayor said:
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,

Yes, as it turns out the Bill of Rights was designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Having never lived one day of your life as a minority tends to make it more difficult to truly understand the harm and the helplessness that minorities feel when they are surrounded at all times. It would be like making a white man live a few years in Harlem or the poorest neighborhoods of Chicago for a few years. See if he understands a little more about how scary it can be to be outnumbered at all times.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=0


You can expect a lot more of this with a Clinton presidency, a lot more. She'll find the most leftwing radical possible.

Well, you guys chose an unstable narcissistic liar for your official candidate, so I guess that's just how it's gonna go. You could have gone with somebody like Kacich whom nobody seems to hate, but you just had to have your fire-breathing xenophobe.

I really don't think it should have been terribly difficult for you to beat Clinton, but you're not going to and it's your party's fault.
 
Well, you guys chose an unstable narcissistic liar for your official candidate, so I guess that's just how it's gonna go. You could have gone with somebody like Kacich whom nobody seems to hate, but you just had to have your fire-breathing xenophobe.

I really don't think it should have been terribly difficult for you to beat Clinton, but you're not going to and it's your party's fault.

I voted for Paul, so I didn't go for him. But the lemmings wasted no time voting for Clinton.
 
I voted for Paul, so I didn't go for him. But the lemmings wasted no time voting for Clinton.

So wait...you're a new Trump supporter? Why haven't your responded to my thread on that topic?
 
I voted for Paul, so I didn't go for him. But the lemmings wasted no time voting for Clinton.

It's Republican voters who gave us a candidate Clinton can beat. Not us. If the Democratic party put forth a candidate that Trump could beat, we would take responsibility for that because Trump shouldn't be able to beat anybody.
 
So wait...you're a new Trump supporter? Why haven't your responded to my thread on that topic?

I never said I was a Trump supporter.
 
So wait...you're a new Trump supporter? Why haven't your responded to my thread on that topic?

American is on the #neverclinton team, ergo he will vote Trump.
 
It's Republican voters who gave us a candidate Clinton can beat. Not us. If the Democratic party put forth a candidate that Trump could beat, we would take responsibility for that because Trump shouldn't be able to beat anybody.

You could have supported Bernie.
 
I never said I was a Trump supporter.

Yes, that does seem to be the new, rhetoric I've finally deciphered. People cram "I'm not a Trump supporter" into the same breath as a long, draw-out defense of Trump at every turn. It's the new "I'm not a racist but.." for this campaign.
 
Yes, that does seem to be the new, rhetoric I've finally deciphered. People cram "I'm not a Trump supporter" into the same breath as a long, draw-out defense of Trump at every turn. It's the new "I'm not a racist but.." for this campaign.

Have I actually been defending him?
 
Should probably confirm Merrick Garland while you have the chance then huh?

I agree that Merrick Garland should be confirmed. No doubt that he is center left. However, Ginsberg will leave office during the Trump presidency. He'll get to appoint a conservative to replace her.
 
You could have supported Bernie.

I did. He was my man. But we've got Clinton now instead, and she, eminently unlikable as she is, is going to be President because a plurality of Republican voters accomplished the feat of choosing someone even worse.
 
I never said I was a Trump supporter.



Do you not read your own posts defending him?

You're not alone with the "interesting" notion that you can vote for Trump but not support him. However it's sand blowing in the wind.

The Republicans had this election to lose. All they needed to do was find a candidate who didn't talk about "binders full of women" and appealed to the base of the party.

Instead you have chosen a suspiciously sociopathic, racist bully who will likely get crushed by the Clinton machine.

For the record, Hillary Clinton cannot win this election, it's a matter of Trump's Republicans handing it to her on a ****ing platter.
 
Should probably confirm Merrick Garland while you have the chance then huh?

We expect a prison term for Killary Rotten Clinton during Trump's term as president ! :lamo
 
We expect a prison term for Killary Rotten Clinton during Trump's term as president ! :lamo

Think President Trump would pardon her? Did you know that she retains her Secret Service protection detail even if in prison?
 
Yes, as it turns out the Bill of Rights was designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Having never lived one day of your life as a minority tends to make it more difficult to truly understand the harm and the helplessness that minorities feel when they are surrounded at all times. It would be like making a white man live a few years in Harlem or the poorest neighborhoods of Chicago for a few years. See if he understands a little more about how scary it can be to be outnumbered at all times.

That is all irrelevant to the job of a judge. Their job is not to base rulings on feelings and personal experiences but on the original intent of the Constitution.
 
It's Republican voters who gave us a candidate Clinton can beat. Not us. If the Democratic party put forth a candidate that Trump could beat, we would take responsibility for that because Trump shouldn't be able to beat anybody.

They did put a candidate forward that Trump can beat. Whether he wins or not remains to be seen but she's so bad that I think there is a chance.
 
Do you not read your own posts defending him?

You're not alone with the "interesting" notion that you can vote for Trump but not support him. However it's sand blowing in the wind.

The Republicans had this election to lose. All they needed to do was find a candidate who didn't talk about "binders full of women" and appealed to the base of the party.

Instead you have chosen a suspiciously sociopathic, racist bully who will likely get crushed by the Clinton machine.

For the record, Hillary Clinton cannot win this election, it's a matter of Trump's Republicans handing it to her on a ****ing platter.

The part in bold only proves that it doesn't matter who Republicans choose. Romney was about as moderate as you could get and yet he still got blasted for made up controversial stuff like "binders full of women".
 
Back
Top Bottom