- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Translation?
Don't you even think of raising any objections or else.
Translation?White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a pointed warning to opponents of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination Wednesday, urging critics to measure their words carefully during a politically charged confirmation debate.
“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation,” Gibbs said.
He was replying to a question from CBS’s Chip Reid about a blog post by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accusing Sotomayor of imposing identity politics on the bench and declaring: “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
In 2001, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer drew criticism in the press for suggesting Americans “need to watch what they say” in the overheated aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Read more: "W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful' - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com" - W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful' - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com
Translation?
Don't you even think of raising any objections or else.
When is the revolution going to start? Jut tell me a time and place, and I'm there.
I think the correct translation is "Let's keep this debate related to the qualifications of the candidate and avoid divisive racial remarks."
It happened all ready, sadly the idiots won this time.
He was replying to a question from CBS’s Chip Reid about a blog post by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accusing Sotomayor of imposing identity politics on the bench and declaring: “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
I think the reference was about the use of 'race' in this process. Criticise her on her qualifications.
I think the reference was about the use of 'race' in this process. Criticise her on her qualifications.
"Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," he declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life."
The 'Empathy' Nominee - WSJ.comIn a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," she declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."
So you can use her race if you want to praise her, but not if you want to criticize her.
Amazing isn't it?
Its stupid to praise someone on race alone but she is not exactly unqualified now is she? But whatever rocks their boat, i am merely clarifying what i think WH was saying 'be careful' on.
I'm in a place right now where I think that anybody who is a leftist or somebody supported by Obama is unqualified.
Her education and experience speaks for itself.
Its not like she is some nobody plucked off the road and stuck on the SC.
Translation?
Don't you even think of raising any objections or else.
Her education and experience speaks for itself.
Its not like she is some nobody plucked off the road and stuck on the SC.
So a good resume trumps all?
Beats having no experience or education, so in that sense she is qualified for SC. Whether you agree with her is another issue.
No one must have seriously expected a Democrat president to nominate a strict constructionist, conservative justice right?
The Supreme Court has no room for living constitution ****heads.
That is for the President and Senate to decide no?
Translation?
Don't you even think of raising any objections or else.
Fox News host Megyn Kelly and ABC correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg misrepresented a remark that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, made in a speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, claiming that she suggested, in Kelly's words, "that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges." In fact, when Sotomayor asserted, "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," she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining race and sex discrimination cases. As Media Matters for America has noted, former Bush Justice Department lawyer John Yoo has similarly stressed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him" and argued that Thomas' work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the less fortunate acquired through personal experience.
So you admit that they don't care about justice or the constitution?
Are you guys kidding? More partisan spin? If the words were not cherry picked one could easily see that she was not using racist remarks.
Here is the full link: Fox's Kelly, ABC's Greenburg skew Sotomayor remark about "Latina," "white male" judges | Media Matters for America
Can we please put such ridiculous matters to rest?
I think the correct translation is "Let's keep this debate related to the qualifications of the candidate and avoid divisive racial remarks."
I think the reference was about the use of 'race' in this process. Criticise her on her qualifications.
What has that got to do with anything?
You don't get to decide what the SC needs or don't. The power is in the hand of the Senate and President.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?