Rodney
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 93
- Location
- Nashville/Little Mexico Tennessee
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
LOL. This is the like the musings of the stereotypical leftwing bots.
Don't make me think about anything, just spoonfeed me "my thoughts", all mixed in with a couple of strawmen and caricatures.
Is this the garbage the public edjewcashun system pumps out now?
Welcome to DP, and may I introduce you to the most PC, bleeding heart bot, of all the liberals amongst us. Meet Redress. :2wave:
The problem is that she did the opposite.
She's a racist and is not fit to sit on the SCOTUS.
If Redress is the best leftist asshat you've got here, that's pretty freaking sad.
Newt Gingrich called Sotomayor a racist, and correctly pointed out that, were she white and her hypothetical of wise Latina and white man reversed, she would be pilloried and excoriated as such.
The Anti-Republicans are agreeing with Newt.
How exactly is that a "smear"? When both sides say she needs to retract what she said, that's not a smear, that's a case of Sotomayor foot in Sotomayor mouth.
Do you deny that a Latino judge would be more capable of understanding the issues in a case involving Latinos? Because that is what she said, and I don't see anything that needs retracting.
Morally, she has done very little right. You are in error here.Tactically, she probably should retract it. However, morally, she has done very little wrong here.
The pure idiocy is arguing that her membership in two allegedly "oppressed" groups is a valid foundation for interpreting the law.It is pure idiocy to put 'white man' in where 'latina woman' is, and think that proves anything except make the statement unfathomable. Do you think she might have possibly, just possibly, meant something totally obvious: that the experience of being oppressed due to membership in two of the oppressed groups in our society could have made her wiser? You and every one else bent on creating a tempest in a teapot are busy ignoring this obvious non-racist meaning, even though you know it to be true.
She might have said that, and I might have agreed with her. Unfortunately for your (losing) argument, she did not say that, nor did she say anything remotely like that.In short, the obvious meaning of what she said is: "I am wiser because I have experienced racism directed at me. I am wiser because I have experienced chauvinism directed at me." I cannot express how incredibly and plainly stupid it is to be convinced that she is somehow racist. What would not be stupid would be to pretend that you believed she is racist in order to attempt to hurt her politically.
The only game playing is by the liberal lunatic left that pretends that identity politics is somehow an equal application of the law--which is stupidity squared.So, are ya' stupid or just playing games?
Ummm....that's neither conservative nor liberal. She's got a remarkable life story, no doubt. "Remarkable life story" is not part of the bar exam, nor is it part of adjudicating the law.This is a self-made woman from immigrant roots who pulled herself up by her bootstraps. How much more conservative can you get than that?
Laws do change....in the legislatures which pass them.The law is fluid. It's ever changing. It's constantly being revised and reinterpreted. Diversity, in that setting, is a STRENGTH.
Ummm....that's neither conservative nor liberal. She's got a remarkable life story, no doubt. "Remarkable life story" is not part of the bar exam, nor is it part of adjudicating the law.
Laws do change....in the legislatures which pass them.
In the courtroom, laws are etched in stone. A fluid standard of justice is merely another term for injustice.
-Justice ScaliaIn fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed.
They will find something, anything to attack her on. Some blowhard blogger is upset by the way she pronounces her own name. I would agree with you if the cesspool crowd is still splitting swill in a few more days issue some statement about her miss-talkinating or some Bushlike excuse and let it go.
From an article about Sotomayor said:Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.
Tactically, she probably should retract it. However, morally, she has done very little wrong here.
It is pure idiocy to put 'white man' in where 'latina woman' is, and think that proves anything except make the statement unfathomable.
Do you think she might have possibly, just possibly, meant something totally obvious: that the experience of being oppressed due to membership in two of the oppressed groups in our society could have made her wiser? You and every one else bent on creating a tempest in a teapot are busy ignoring this obvious non-racist meaning, even though you know it to be true.
In short, the obvious meaning of what she said is: "I am wiser because I have experienced racism directed at me. I am wiser because I have experienced chauvinism directed at me." I cannot express how incredibly and plainly stupid it is to be convinced that she is somehow racist. What would not be stupid would be to pretend that you believed she is racist in order to attempt to hurt her politically.
So, are ya' stupid or just playing games?
Interpretation is not revision. I remind you of Chief Justice Marshall's words in Marbury v Madison:Wrong. Laws are as often revised by judicial findings as by legislative action. It is the job of the courts to interpret laws in lights of our foundational principles and previous court findings, to ensure that legislative actions don't take us too far from our founding documents.
No ruling changes the law. No ruling alters the law. Every ruling applies the law--no more and no less than this.It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
Again, that is not revising the law. Going back to Marbury v MadisonFor instance, consider laws which are overturned in court because they are found to be unconstitutional...that IS, in fact, the role of the court, to serve as a check/balance on legislative action.
The Court does not invalidate the law. The Constitution invalidates laws repugnant to it. The Court applies the Constitution to the law, and the law to the case, in that order of precedence....the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.
And this is an irrelevancy.We are not a pure democracy, we are a republic.
All but an understanding of the proper role of the jurist, unfortunately.No, but every person brings something to the practice of law. She is bringing quite a lot.
She's obviously not very keen on the constitution.
Well, definitely, her position on guns is shi-ite.
Interpretation is not revision.
And this is an irrelevancy.
No, it isn't a revision.So, when a court overturns a law and/or invalidates sections of it, that isn't, in practice, a REVISION of the law? Bollocks.
Nor is there inherently such capacity in a Republic.No, actually, it isn't. Because in a straight democracy, legislative action is defined by the majority, WITH NO CAPACITY for interpretation of those laws in light of founding documents.
So, you would rather be a latina woman than a white male, I take it, because latina women have it, ummm, so good. Whatever, if you believe that you would rather be that, then you are delusional.I didn't know latina women were so horribly "oppressed" in this country. Heh. Is that why so many flood across our borders risking life and limb every day? Hispanics have been advantaged in this country by the racist policies of affirmative action, and she has been further advantaged by being a woman and getting to double dip with affirmative action. What the hell is "oppressive" about that? The only people oppressed de jure in this country are whites, particularly males, (and in some states, like California, asians).
So, stating that one has been oppressed due to racism and chauvinism and that one has gained wisdom thereby is racist? And how is it 'playing a victim'? Can you arrange the matter into a step by step formally logical argument so that I can follow your reasoning... I must be too dense to see it on my own.What you say is even worse, being racist and playing the victim card all in one shot.
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?