Thread: BORK HER !!!

WOW! I can't belive she actually said that! Lets see if any of the politicians have enought backbone to actually call her out on it. I don't think they will, because we have a bunch of pansy, star-struck (with our dear leader Obama) wusses to actually do their job.

Matt

Originally Posted by Rajagra

I have no idea, sorry if I gave that impression. I was merely discussing the logic of what was said. i.e.

"There is no reason why there should not be"
is not the same as
"There is reason why there should be."

don't be sorry
this is how the Left operates

see the poll option concerning racists?

accusations accusations
Let's keep it clean there you Igit


see the concept is to pick a poorly qualified woman, from a group of poorly qualified women
then you say " Hey, how come only women?"

then they accuse you of being sexist

this is their means of setting up a straw man, and you can't argue a point because you are too busy arguing about not being sexist
pretty slick huh?

now everyone shuffles away from you as fast as they can because they don't want to be seen with a sexist

naturally you are angry at having your words twisted and having words put in your mouth

so then they call you angry
" Oh, look at how angry he is! He HATES women and anyone who would disagree with him!"

see the poll option concerning racists ???
this is their game, but it's only a game
DON"T LET THEM BACK YOU DOWN
You didn't insult anyone, he insulted you by implying you are a bigot.
DON'T LET THEM BACK YOU DOWN !!

Originally Posted by Rajagra

I have no idea, sorry if I gave that impression. I was merely discussing the logic of what was said. i.e.

"There is no reason why there should not be"
is not the same as
"There is reason why there should be."

No problem. Sorry, I didn't mean to come back so hard! I don't want to be misconstrued as being in favor of quotas, because that is the kind of "in" that the bullies and blowhards in these debates will lunge for.

I realize there is no actual quota, and given that half of the population is female, then eventually APPROXIMATELY half of the Court should be female. However, the fact that the four finalists were all female indicates to me that the gender of the candidates was a discriminatory factor.

Originally Posted by Utopian

I realize there is no actual quota, and given that half of the population is female, then eventually APPROXIMATELY half of the Court should be female. However, the fact that the four finalists were all female indicates to me that the gender of the candidates was a discriminatory factor.

I think that is a fair statement. However, the word "discriminatory" may be a little strong. How about, the president simply WANTED to nominate a woman from the get-go? I don't know if you can call it discriminatory, because it is not a "best person for the job" type of search. Presidents always fill the federal courts with people who will tend to decide things the way that their own constituency(-ies) want/like. It doesn't always work, of course (see Souter, David). There is also tremendous political hay to be made from the narrative of the "first, Hispanic woman on the Court," as you are seeing play out in the press now. This is politics, and Obama is showing himself to be very adept at it.

Originally Posted by igitur55

I think that is a fair statement. However, the word "discriminatory" may be a little strong. How about, the president simply WANTED to nominate a woman from the get-go? I don't know if you can call it discriminatory, because it is not a "best person for the job" type of search. Presidents always fill the federal courts with people who will tend to decide things the way that their own constituency(-ies) want/like. It doesn't always work, of course (see Souter, David). There is also tremendous political hay to be made from the narrative of the "first, Hispanic woman on the Court," as you are seeing play out in the press now. This is politics, and Obama is showing himself to be very adept at it.

How is that different than if I decided that I only WANT to have white males working for me and therefore only consider those applicants? If I base my choices solely on gender and race, I consider that to be discriminatory. It seems to me that Obama did the same thing.

Originally Posted by Utopian

How is that different than if I decided that I only WANT to have white males working for me and therefore only consider those applicants? If I base my choices solely on gender and race, I consider that to be discriminatory. It seems to me that Obama did the same thing.

Not a bad point. It does seem a little discriminatory. However, I think that what is important is that you will never prove it! He is said to have considered 40 candidates and then limited it to 4 "semi-finalists" before choosing Sotomayor. As I pointed out above, a president has a lot of considerations in mind when he makes this choice. He is tossing several important (for him) constituencies a bone in this nomination. It is not all about whether she is a woman, or whether she belongs to this or that racial group, but of course you and I know it played a very important role. I guess above all else, we have to accept that this is politics. You don't have to like it, and it sounds like you don't, however he won the election, and this is one of the perks of the job. To him the spoils ... until next time.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

DON"T LET THEM BACK YOU DOWN
... DON'T LET THEM BACK YOU DOWN !!

You, sir, fight like a little girl, and I will not debate you until you calm down.

Originally Posted by igitur55

You, sir, fight like a little girl, and I will not debate you until you calm down.

claiming I'm angry?
hmm... sounds familiar..........where have I heard that before.....

Oh yes
I predicted as much several posts ago!

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

so then they call you angry

Check and mate.
You sir have just lost.

Let us all calm down.

Sometimes, after appointment to the court, they throw knuckleballs.

She is in, no question in my mind. No change in the balance of the court if everything comes out as expected.

Obama won the election. He gets to make the choice. We can agree or disagree with that choice, but the choice is his.