W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

Redress · May 27, 2009

Zyphlin said:
I do think its a bit of your partisanship, but I can understand it. Here's where I'm coming from on it.

My view is that by trying to call out the racist rhetoric its setting it up that anything even mentioning racist somehow equals racism. Its meant to make people walk on egg shells, so much so that LEGITIMATE concerns that may involve race are intimidated to keep quiet for fear of being labeled a racist because the Obama administration...after many on the left made it a point to use her sex and race as a bonus for her...deemed it now a non-issue.

Yes, definitely, if some dumbass slack jawed republican went "I don't want no freaking wet back on the supreme court" then by all means, smack him down for the ignorant bigot he is. However, if someone states "I worry that this woman's race affects her view of how the law should be handled so much that it leads me to believe she will be a judge that views cases not simply through the eyes of the law but through the eyes of her ethnic and sexual views" that to me is not racist, yet THAT is the kind of thing being said FAR MORE than the former, would you not agree? And if you do agree, then what's the point in the White House coming out and telling people to "Be careful" about saying stuff that everyone already knows to discount?

On the same token though...

If there are 10 qualified candidates, all equal, but you find that this womans views based on her race in regards to, for instance, punishment and the differences that they should be enforced perhaps on a rich white male over a poor latin female, then is that not as acceptable of a reason to deny her in exchange for one of those other 9 qualified candidates as it is to qualify her based on her race and gender in the name of diversity?

You might think the notion that people are bothered by that is moot because its not an issue. However, that does not make it racism. It just makes it a point you disagree with, much like people may disagree with the notion that somehow we specifically need to search and picked judges with "diversity" in mind simply to have a fair and just rule of law.

Some really good questions in there. On racism and what what WH said: certain members of the far right are using strong rhetoric on race in this issue. It walks a fine line, and intentionally. You will also note that the ones being the loudest are ones not in public office.

Further, there should be some evidence to base any concern that her ethnicity or gender would cause her to rule unfairly before making the assumption. I just got done reading the whole lecture where Sotomayer made her controversial statements, and nothing I see in there is to my mind a real concern. Talloulou disagrees tho, so I suppose I can see where some will think it is a possible issue. I have not yet seen any example of a ruling where her race or gender might have caused her to rule differently, though again I suspect talloulou is going to jump in here and disagree. I have done a whole lot of reading on this today, including the "New Haven" judgment(the original, not just the one paragraph appeals court decision she was involved in) and her speech, and a few other things, and I am having a hard time understanding the fuss.

Liz Peeps · May 27, 2009

I like how Obama is all "well we need someone in there to interpret the law with compassion" and blah blah blah, we're talking about the constitution here. You don't need to "interpret" the Constitution, the **** isn't written in Chinese for christsakes.

Redress · May 27, 2009

talloulou said:
I think there is definitely a value in diversity. But I think that value stems from the diversity seeing to it that no one "personal experience type" dominates over
the courts ruling.

It seems like the same thing but the difference is there -for me. Her being Latino is good because she will break up "the old white guy" club a bit more. If old white guys have similar experiences it is possible that this is effecting their rulings. However the diversity is NOT a plus if she views it as an opportunity to bring a PRO LATINO, or PRO woman, or pro- poor attitude to the court. Does that make sense? That's where she misses the mark. I don't care that she's Latino. I'd rather she go on and on about how she will add diversity to a predominate white man's club vs hear how excited she is to bring a Latino perspective. While the supreme court and all courts should be diverse judges need to be impartial and not seem gungho to be an "in" for whatever special interest group they pride themselves on being included in.

See, this is where I think we just end up seeing things differently based on our different political views. I don't see her being "pro latino", or "pro woman". I see her saying what you are actually, that diversity is good, since it acts as a check on letting one groups viewpoint distort the proper vision of the law.

Redress · May 27, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
If you are viewing the law from an objective point of view, it is very clear.

If you are ruling based on emotion, heart or whatever nonsense then the law becomes muddled with crap.

if it was so clear, there would be no need for an appeals court, and yet we do need one. If the law was so crystal clear, we would not need a Supreme Court, and yet here we are arguing about a nominee for that court.

F107HyperSabr · May 27, 2009

talloulou said:
Well she did quote a socialist in her college yearbook. Odd choice if you're not a socialist.

I am no fan of MARXISTS, Communists, or Russians but I would like to se what exactly she quoated. Was it "good day", or eace is good", or "war is better" ?

FlappyTheKinkajou · May 27, 2009

Redress said:
if it was so clear, there would be no need for an appeals court, and yet we do need one. If the law was so crystal clear, we would not need a Supreme Court, and yet here we are arguing about a nominee for that court.

Maybe it is clear, and the people in the judicial system suck monkey mangina?

Harry Guerrilla · May 27, 2009

Redress said:
if it was so clear, there would be no need for an appeals court, and yet we do need one. If the law was so crystal clear, we would not need a Supreme Court, and yet here we are arguing about a nominee for that court.

An Appeals court exists to review the cases in reference to the law.

Not necessarily the law itself.

Was all evidence presented factual, proper conduct followed, etc.

F107HyperSabr · May 27, 2009

Redress said:
if it was so clear, there would be no need for an appeals court, and yet we do need one. If the law was so crystal clear, we would not need a Supreme Court, and yet here we are arguing about a nominee for that court.

That's almost what I said in another thread in a galaxy far far away!!!

talloulou · May 27, 2009

Redress said:
See, this is where I think we just end up seeing things differently based on our different political views. I don't see her being "pro latino", or "pro woman". I see her saying what you are actually, that diversity is good, since it acts as a check on letting one groups viewpoint distort the proper vision of the law.

But she doesn't talk about balance and diversity so much as she sounds happy to represent. For me it's the things she says. She's in your face with the fact that she will bring her experiences to the court room. She sees this as matter of fact and is both prideful and somewhat bored with worrying over it. She never seems concerned that openly admitting that she carries her own baggage to court is worrisome. She seems like she would poo poo the whole idea of it being worrisome. She has given up on impartiality as a goal with the casualness that one would use to brush lint off their shoulder. Plus she views herself as a policy maker.

But whatever ready or not she's coming.

Redress · May 27, 2009

F107HyperSabr said:
I am no fan of MARXISTS, Communists, or Russians but I would like to se what exactly she quoated. Was it "good day", or eace is good", or "war is better" ?

Her horrible socialist high school yearbook quote: "I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won." The quote is from Norman Thomas.

F107HyperSabr · May 27, 2009

Harry Guerrilla said:
An Appeals court exists to review the cases in reference to the law.

Not necessarily the law itself.

Was all evidence presented factual, proper conduct followed, etc.

The term "proper" is the phrase "proper conduct" is properly subjective virtaully always.

Redress · May 27, 2009

talloulou said:
But she doesn't talk about balance and diversity so much as she sounds happy to represent. For me it's the things she says. She's in your face with the fact that she will bring her experiences to the court room. She sees this as matter of fact and is both prideful and somewhat bored with worrying over it. She never seems concerned that openly admitting that she carries her own baggage to court is worrisome. She seems like she would poo poo the whole idea of it being worrisome. She has given up on impartiality as a goal with the casualness that one would use to brush lint off their shoulder. Plus she views herself as a policy maker.

But whatever ready or not she's coming.

I think the thing is that she is speaking at an annual lecture on diversity in the law profession, or the bench, or whatever. Of course she is going to talk positively about her ethnicity and gender, it's what she is there to talk about and promote.

goldendog · May 27, 2009

talloulou said:
Perhaps judges should put out long bios and folks should get to pick who hears their case based on who is most likely to have had experiences that will be easiest to exploit in ones favor.

I'm sure her long bio has been throughly vetted by the Obama Administration.

Why is it that the people on the Right are so supportive of this choice?

They have been so supportive of everything the President so far....:rofl

FlappyTheKinkajou · May 27, 2009

goldendog said:
I'm sure her long bio has been throughly vetted by the Obama Administration.

This gives me no confidence whatsoever. In fact, now I know that we are doomed.

TurtleDude · May 27, 2009

Redress said:
if it was so clear, there would be no need for an appeals court, and yet we do need one. If the law was so crystal clear, we would not need a Supreme Court, and yet here we are arguing about a nominee for that court.

actually the document is fairly clear. THose who didn't like what it said are the ones who have confused it-such as FDR wanting to ban machine guns (thinking it would wipe out Capone like mobsters) and thus using the Commerce Clause to Rape and pillage the second and tenth amendments.

F107HyperSabr · May 27, 2009

Redress said:
Her horrible socialist high school yearbook quote: "I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won." The quote is from Norman Thomas.

Wow that woman needs to be punished for that dispicable indiscresion for eternity !! What was she thinking that whench ! That horrible Commie ! Who else has she quoted ? Maybe she quoted Bob Dillon !! Or I understand that she was part of a Glee Club in high school and they sang the Communist Woody Guthrie song "This Land Is Your Land". She is nothing but a Commie HO !!! Look at these Commie words !!! This is unpatriotic !! This is treason !

Can you imagine that this song tells any and every American that thsi land belongs to them !!! Her entire highschool should be charged with treason !!!

She should not be going to the supreme court she should be doing to prisonfor life without parole !!!

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me.
As I went walking that ribbon of highway
I saw above me that endless skyway
I saw below me that golden valley
This land was made for you and me.
I roamed and I rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
While all around me a voice was sounding
Saying this land was made for you and me.
When the sun came shining, and I was strolling
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
A voice was chanting, As the fog was lifting,
This land was made for you and me.
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me.

Harry Guerrilla · May 27, 2009

F107HyperSabr said:
The term "proper" is the phrase "proper conduct" is properly subjective virtaully always.

It only becomes subjective when an individual has an ulterior motive or is not qualified to make such decisions.

goldendog · May 27, 2009

FlappyTheKinkajou said:
This gives me no confidence whatsoever. In fact, now I know that we are doomed.

Doomed? Yes the Republican party and it's assbackwards way of thinking is doomed.:boom

FlappyTheKinkajou · May 27, 2009

goldendog said:
Doomed? Yes the Republican party and it's assbackwards way of thinking is doomed.:boom

The Republican party surely is doomed, but that is because they tried to copy an art that Obama has perfected.

goldendog · May 27, 2009

FlappyTheKinkajou said:
The Republican party surely is doomed, but that is because they tried to copy an art that Obama has perfected.

Change????? I don't think so.

In fact the Republicans have offered zero solutions for anything what so ever.

McCain the self professed Bin Laden catcher has ran and hid and has not offered up his touted method of catching OBL. Remember him spouting something like that repeatedly on the campaign trail? That only he know how to catch OBL?

The least McCain could do is offer up his self proclaimed expertise instead of shurking his country and not even offer up that idea.

As far as solutions go. The Republican party is full of hot air.

celticlord · May 28, 2009

F107HyperSabr said:
I am not upset with that quote because reaching a better "conclusion" does not mean that she is calling the old white men less wise but possibly that her conclusion could be better becasuse of her experiences which are diferent than the old white men.

You're contradicting yourself (again).

F107HyperSabr said:
So it's not a take away from the old white men but an additive by her experiences.

It is a take away from everyone except the putatively "wise" latina.
That sort of arrogance is not additive of anything, to anything, by anything.

F107HyperSabr said:
Isn't that possible !!!!!

No, it isn't. Common sense tells you that.

Agent Ferris · May 28, 2009

goldendog said:
Doomed? Yes the Republican party and it's assbackwards way of thinking is doomed.:boom

No this country is doomed and Obama is gleefully destroying it with every single move he makes. When you look back 10 years from now and wonder where your 401k went, why there's 20%+ unemployment rate, and hyperinflation just remember you were warned.

Agent Ferris · May 28, 2009

F107HyperSabr said:
being a judge requires interpretion and that requires both objective components and there are subjective components.

Your supposed to put your "subjective components" aside, personal feelings have no place in judging a case. As tallolou said being a judge requires being impartial and objective.

Agent Ferris · May 28, 2009

Redress said:
Some really good questions in there. On racism and what what WH said: certain members of the far right are using strong rhetoric on race in this issue. It walks a fine line, and intentionally. You will also note that the ones being the loudest are ones not in public office.

Further, there should be some evidence to base any concern that her ethnicity or gender would cause her to rule unfairly before making the assumption.

How about denying whites a promotion because no blacks passed the same test that they did?

Redress · May 28, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
How about denying whites a promotion because no blacks passed the same test that they did?

How about you read the whole thread. It is talked about in depth, with numerous quotes from the actual ruling. When you know more than just what Rush told you, come back and ask again

W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liz Peeps

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

F107HyperSabr

FlappyTheKinkajou

Active member

Harry Guerrilla

F107HyperSabr

talloulou

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

F107HyperSabr

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

goldendog

FlappyTheKinkajou

Active member

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

F107HyperSabr

Harry Guerrilla

goldendog

FlappyTheKinkajou

Active member

goldendog

celticlord

Well-known member

Agent Ferris

Agent Ferris

Agent Ferris

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Active member

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Active member

warrior of the wetlands

Active member

Well-known member

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency