• 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!

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

azura28 said:
Of course they do - they have since the beginning of the supreme court -they are not robotic. Sotomayor is just being honest - which I think is quite refreshing!
Good luck to her.
Click to expand...

I think it's a dangerous attitude and changes the face of what it means to be a judge. Willingly accepting that your prejudices are going to effect your ruling is accepting that you're not going to be impartial and being damn near smug about it.

Eventually our judges will just be select representatives seated to serve special interests or select groups and everyone will have forgotten that justice is supposed to be blind.
 


She didn't say the white male was wise. If he was, he could have empathy for any group, and it's possible the Latina woman wouldn't have it for someone who came from a background different from her own. That's actually a dumb statement, and somebody who makes these kinds of statements probably is a bigot.

I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.
Click to expand...

This contradicts the first paragraph. She's saying anybody can understand the values and needs of people from a different group, but in the first paragraph she's saying a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would come to a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. I smell a bigot.

She'll be confirmed because everybody is wanting the Hispanic votes, but still they need to give her a hard time like they did Alito and Roberts.
 

That's not what she's saying at all - her past rulings have been taken in account, and show her to give impartial rulings as well. She probably shouldn't have said it -because obviously,:roll:, she is going to going to keep getting grief about it, however, all of them let their life experiences affect them to some extent, that's why there are liberal and conservative judges.
 

If it does happen, then diversity should be desirable, and she is right that in that case, her gender/ethnicity is of value. Just saying "well, it shouldn't" does not help anything. Our whole court system is based around the idea that judges cannot agree on anything, and with that being the case, and since judges of different sex and ethnic groups do rule differently, diversity is important.

I do not see her as "bragging about it", she was giving a speech on that topic, at an annual event, on that topic. Obviously, she is going to talk about it, and talk about it in a positive light when her whole point at being there is to do so.
 

I did not come away from her speech with that impression. She contradicted herself a few times, often enough I felt it was intentional. She is questioning alot of conventional wisdom on both sides, those who think that race/gender is irrelevant, and those who think it is highly relevant. She is saying as I read it that race/gender play a part in how judges rule, but that does not mean that race/gender is a requirement to rule wisely.
 

Really? Democrats didnt go after him based on race alone? His race was 1 of the reasons the DNC special interests gave to stonewall his appointment. As DNC memos prove.

See below:

Featured Article - WSJ.com


Pretty easy to see, that they went off of race alone as 1 of the qualifiers here on Estrada.

Now, we have Sotomayor who has basically said she would be better then any white guy simply b/c she is Latino.
 

Sotomayor gives an annual speech on her latina vagina's superior decision making abilities over that of old white penises?
 

Gender and ethnicity have no greater value then the other gender or ethnic group in the eyes of the law, unless, UNLESS, Congress passes legislation making it so, like AA or giving illegal aliens in state tuition. The eyes of justice should be blind to all genders and ethnic groups, neither of those should be in play when deciding the outcome.

Its that simple.
 

for all the reprints of the WSJ story, I have yet to see who wrote "he is Latino". It seems to have been a nameless lobbyist, and as such, can safely be ignored.
 

Except that judges do rule differently based on gender and ethnicity. As long as that is the case, then diversity is something of value.
 
Redress said:
Except that judges do rule differently based on gender and ethnicity. As long as that is the case, then diversity is something of value.
Click to expand...

cacophony has no value.

do the females rule according to the law of the Constitution?

Not really. They have "empathy" according to The Messiah. If their rulings were consistent with the Constitution, they wouldn't need "empathy".

Also, an all male court ruled, incorrectly, that abortion was a right of women found in the Constitution that no one had ever seen before and that no one has yet been able to find. Would having a "diverse" court caused the court to rule correctly on that issue instead?

An all white court ruled that the Separate But Equal policy (approved by an earlier court) was unconstitutional. Would a "diverse" court have come to a different decision?

What I'm pointing out, in case you missed it, is that "diversity" as a goal is purest bull****. What's needed in an Appellate judge or a Supreme Court judge is the ability to interpret the law in a manner consistent with the Constitution, and a latina vagina does not endow it's wearer with any special abilities in that regard.
 
Last edited:

MHO is race shouldn't even be mentioned, it's just gotten so old already. I'd say she brought it up cause she wants everybody to know she's Latino. I honestly thought she was Asian at first.
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
MHO is race shouldn't even be mentioned, it's just gotten so old already. I'd say she brought it up cause she wants everybody to know she's Latino. I honestly thought she was Asian at first.
Click to expand...

She was speaking at an annual lecture on diversity on the bench. How would you expert her to not bring up her gender or ethnicity?
 
It is disturbingly ironic that those who presumably celebrate the efforts of such notables as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to eliminate racism and prejudice, should so blithely disregard the standard elucidated by Dr. King--of judging not by the color of skin but by the content of character--and raise the color of their skin as an especial qualification for judging the character of others.
 
Redress said:
She was speaking at an annual lecture on diversity on the bench. How would you expert her to not bring up her gender or ethnicity?
Click to expand...
In such a circumstance, she should. She should have said this:

"I am a Latina--a woman of Puerto Rican origin. It has no bearing on how I interpret the law or how I decide cases."

Anything beyond that is a deviation from sound jurisprudence.
 
celticlord said:
In such a circumstance, she should. She should have said this:

"I am a Latina--a woman of Puerto Rican origin. It has no bearing on how I interpret the law or how I decide cases."

Anything beyond that is a deviation from sound jurisprudence.
Click to expand...

Then let me go back a step for you, since you jumped in late here. Are you denying her claim that it is documented that judges do rule differently based on race and sex? Do you think it does, or does not happen?
 
Redress said:
Then let me go back a step for you, since you jumped in late here. Are you denying her claim that it is documented that judges do rule differently based on race and sex? Do you think it does, or does not happen?
Click to expand...
I have no idea, personally. If it does, where it does, it is in contravention of justice and of the rule of law.

Saying that it does and saying that it is good that it does are two different propositions. Sotomayor takes the latter stance, to her shame and disrepute.
 

That is a misrepresentation of her position. Have you read the whole speech? It's kinda interesting. Her argument as I read it is that, if you look at rulings, there is a difference based on race and gender, that therefore it is of value to have diversity and people of nonwhite male backgrounds in the courts.

She also says quite clearly, and in fact in the paragraph right after the controversial comment from the speech, that white men are capable of making very wise decisions.
 

Yes, I see that now.
 
Re: What is objective ??

MrVicchio said:
Interesting that you don't actually use things IN the constitution, just what if's. And a silly finale at that.
Click to expand...

If have either have dificulting applying an example or just plain don't want that's ok. You have every right to interpret by closing to the example any way you wish tha is your right but you also have a right to be wrong and you do that very well. At least that is how I interpret your remarks.
 
Re: What is objective ??

celticlord said:
You do realize the applicable Constitution is that of the United States of America and not the People's Republic of China, I hope?
Click to expand...

WTFAYTA or you either do get humor or do not like it or both!!
 
WillRockwell said:
for all the reprints of the WSJ story, I have yet to see who wrote "he is Latino". It seems to have been a nameless lobbyist, and as such, can safely be ignored.
Click to expand...

Do what? The special interest groups of the DNC wrote it, and the DNC followed it, b/c the DNC never allowed Estrada an up and down vote.

Safely be ignored? Your kidding.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Sotomayor gives an annual speech on her latina vagina's superior decision making abilities over that of old white penises?
Click to expand...

I see this thread has now decended intot he the levels of juniior high or juniot low school after this post by S .A.
 
TheHat said:
Do what? The special interest groups of the DNC wrote it, and the DNC followed it, b/c the DNC never allowed Estrada an up and down vote.

Safely be ignored? Your kidding.
Click to expand...

The special interest groups of the DNC?? Why don't you just say the Illuminati wrote it? This is the big hot button issue of the day, emailed to all rightwing lackeys across the country, and you CAN'T EVEN CITE WHO WROTE IT? I think that is hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…