Thread: sotomayor scares me!

I wouldn't say that Sotomayer "scares" me. I'd say she makes me so angry that I can hardly see straight. She gave a speech yesterday or the day before where she said,

"As an older Hispanic woman, having the richness of experience that comes with that, I would hope that more often than not, I would make better decisions than a white man."

Seriously, read that over a few times.

Now, switch the terms "hispanic woman" and "white man," and have a white man make that statement. If I white man said that, he'd be run out of DC so fast it would make your head spin.

That is a level of racism that hasn't been seen in American politics since before the civil rights movement.

Originally Posted by igitur55

Top of the evening to you, GWH! And what a singular pleasure it is to be discussing among friends that wonderful, living, breathing, occasionally medicinal pot-smoking organic document of ours - I mean the United States Constitution. OK, I'm tearing up here ... . Later, folks!

no
no
yes
no
no
no

you've been warned (and deleted a couple posts before anyone saw them)

Look....I don't care how pro-gun rights you are, most reasonable people are not seriously advocating letting 18 year old kids go out and buy gatlin/mini-guns and drive around with them on the roof of their car, without ANY restrictions, background checks, permits, mandatory training, etc....I mean, c'mon! Really?

So I think (hope) most of us agree there has to be SOME amount of COMMON SENSE regulation....

I'm just saying, I'd rather leave that decision up to the states, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

Of course the federal government (ie. Supreme Court) has to protect the 2nd Amendment if a state oversteps it's boundaries and violates the Constitution in their view (using the process of judicial review/scrutiny, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interme...utiny).....for that reason, I'd hope to see more pro-gun rights justices on the Supreme Court.

The constitution is not a living, breathing, organic document. It is a contract. A contract between the states/people and the federal goverment. That is it. There is NOTHING organic, living or breathing about it. There is a mechanism built into it to change it, if it needs to be changed, but that is the states/people changing the contract, and not the contract changin on its own.



Matt

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

I wouldn't say that Sotomayer "scares" me. I'd say she makes me so angry that I can hardly see straight. She gave a speech yesterday or the day before where she said,

Seriously, read that over a few times.

Now, switch the terms "hispanic woman" and "white man," and have a white man make that statement. If I white man said that, he'd be run out of DC so fast it would make your head spin.

That is a level of racism that hasn't been seen in American politics since before the civil rights movement.

Yesterday or, maybe, in 2001.

Let's have some context. Remember, primary sources are ALWAYS better than secondary. This statement was made in response to Sandra Day O'Connor saying that "A wise man and a wise woman owuld reach the same conclusion." ( In know that nothing I say will make any difference, your opinions are all formed--but I think that opinions based on fact are better than opinions based on hearsay, so here are the facts):

First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, 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.... Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. ...Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. 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. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

But of course, please continue to get angry at things that you are told by Fox news, without questioning anything.

Oh, and I almost forgot the important part; the REASON she said what she did...because being a Latina woman jurst has made her EXTREMELY careful about her suppositions and her own prejudices, wheich many white men (looks around the room...yep) are not. She is aware of herself, as many of us are not.

each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

Originally Posted by JimR

But of course, please continue to get angry at things that you are told by Fox news, without questioning anything.

This is the subject for a different thread. I understand that liberals can't stand a network that does not tow the party line, but a discussion on it should be in a different thread.

Matt

Originally Posted by jdurango

Look....I don't care how pro-gun rights you are, most reasonable people are not seriously advocating letting 18 year old kids go out and buy gatlin/mini-guns and drive around with them on the roof of their car, without ANY restrictions, background checks, permits, mandatory training, etc....I mean, c'mon! Really?

So I think (hope) most of us agree there has to be SOME amount of COMMON SENSE regulation....

I'm just saying, I'd rather leave that decision up to the states, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

Of course the federal government (ie. Supreme Court) has to protect the 2nd Amendment if a state oversteps it's boundaries and violates the Constitution in their view (using the process of judicial review/scrutiny, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interme...utiny).....for that reason, I'd hope to see more pro-gun rights justices on the Supreme Court.

I was in a gun store the other day (imagine that) and an old lady came in to buy OC.

She was looking at guns, the store owner handed her the OC, I suggested she buy "that one".

Old folks like me, always have.

The lady seemed real interested, asked the owner to see it, he made some excuse , she left.

The guy proceeded to curse me out (golly I thought I was helping his sell a gun) and I left.

Later I went back to apologize and he apologized back.
Said the lady was crazy but still had a Constitutional right to buy a gun.
He didn't want to sell her a gun, and couldn't afford to be sued on the grounds of violating her right to purchase/own (shall not be infringed)
He claimed to have really gotten screwed once over refusing to sell.

"She passes the background check then I have to sell it. She shoots someone or herself and I have a serious problem"

I think everyone should own two guns , WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS
(myself included, I should have 500+ )

Let us get back on topic please
the topic is this woman's OUTRAGEOUS opinions

WOW JimR

Oliver Wendell Holmes?
he upheld racist and sexist decisions?
NO????


didn't someone quote him when introducing miss Sotacracker?

was it....

... Obama?

2:10
Oliver Wendell Holmes said
" The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience"

A racist? he quoted a racist?
wow
THAT'S HISTORIC !!!
He keeps good company.
Quoting a racist while nominating a racist !!
WOW
HIS-TOR-IC !!

Originally Posted by mhailey

This is the subject for a different thread. I understand that liberals can't stand a network that does not tow the party line, but a discussion on it should be in a different thread.

Matt

I am not a "liberal", I don't identify along any party lines. I am a moral, thinking person. I form my own opinions, based on facts. I personally do not believe that Sotomayor will make a good justice, however, I believe that because I have examined her decisions. I can see that very few of the poster here have done so--they are merely passing on the outrage that they have been given by yellow journalists and partisan politicians.

Primary sources, as I said, are ALWAYS the best.

Do not demean my intelligence with accusations of partisan bias or media brainwashing.

Did you ever consider that I might be familiar with Justice Holmes?

Did it ever occur to you that a black and a Hispanic quoting him might be mental midgets?

forced sterilization? (buck vs bell)
States Rights to ban foreign languages in schools? (meyer vs nebraska)
and ther was one about why black people shouldn't be allowed to buy houses in white neighborhoods
(buchannan vs someone I think)

Obama quoted a guy who said he shouldn't have been able to buy his house in (was it?) Hyde Park.

AND A JUDGE (who is expected to know at least the basics so he could take the HUGE GAFF out of his speach) STOOD NEXT TO HIM AND LISTENED

For the love of God I know more about Holmes than the pair of them and I didn't finish high school!!