Thread: sotomayor scares me!

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 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!!

Originally Posted by JimR

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

I agree with Matt that debating news sources is too far OT, but for the record, I didn't hear that from foxnews.

I find fox news to be just as biased as CCN, just in the other direction, so I don't listen to either.

I heard it on a 2-host, bi-partisan political radio show that is broadcast in my local area. One host felt the same as me, the other insisted it was no big deal.

I misunderstood the time frame, but that does not change the racist nature of the comment.

I am also fully aware of the statement that it was in response to. This, also, does not change the fact that the statement was sexist and racist.

Let's boil this down to VERY simple terms, and look at a hypothetical situation.

Let's say that I, as a white man, was in a political race against a Japanese woman. At an interview or debate, someone said

"A wise man and a wise woman would reach the same conclusion."

And my response was

As an older white man, having the richness of experience that comes with that, I would hope that I would make better decisions most of the time than a Japanese woman.

Can you even begin to imagine the ENORMOUS public outcry over such a wildly racist and bigoted statement?

I would get death threats.

Depending on where I said such a thing, I might be lucky to live long enough to make it to safety.

Either way my political career (in this hypothetical situation) would be over instantly.

And you know what? I'd deserve it.

I'd deserve all of the terrible backlash that such a statement would create. Yet Sotomayer's career has continued strong. Can't you see how perverse the whole situation is?


And, you're right. There is absolutely nothing that you or anybody could say to convince me that we should allow, let alone embrace, a nominee who is so clearly racist.

Why are you scared of a racist kook with questionable logical and analytical reasoning ability and a near total disregard for the concept of equal justice under law and the proper limited role of judges under our system as it has existed since ratification? People voted for "change," and boy are they going to get it--good and hard.

"firmly believe in the rule of law"
"inspired by the achievement of our founding fathers"
"appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. ... understand respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me".
~Sotomayor
Worked for government and private law firms.
yep, sure sounds dangerous to me, at least to anybody who is threatened by thoughtfulness, especially when it opposes one's political perspective.

I have some more rope here if you need it, but it looks to me like you've got more than enough already.

X

Originally Posted by xman

"firmly believe in the rule of law"
"inspired by the achievement of our founding fathers"
"appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. ... understand respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me".
~Sotomayor
Worked for government and private law firms.
yep, sure sounds dangerous to me, at least to anybody who is threatened by thoughtfulness, especially when it opposes one's political perspective.

I have some more rope here if you need it, but it looks to me like you've got more than enough already.

X

Wow X, you truly have a dizzying intellect. Bald quotations, without any substance supporting them, and then a snide remark.

"firmly believe in the rule of law" What else is she going to say? She's a judge. however, stating that policy is made at the appellate level flies in the face of this statement, and shows she doesn't believe it.

"inspired by the achievements of our founding fathers" What does this have to do with her judicial abilities? (other than she feels that White men cannot make as good of a decision as minority women, so she must hold the achievements of our founding fathers in disdain)

"appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. ... understand respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me". Alright, that's for a trial level judge, not an appellate judge, let alone a supreme court justice, and in her quest for setting policy, she will disregard the proper determination of the present case, to promote her "policy."

Also, I'm a Republican, so I'm already hung, LIKE A HORSE!!

Matt

Originally Posted by mhailey

Also, I'm a Republican, so I'm already hung, LIKE A HORSE!!

Matt

Did your wife tell you that little white lie?

I wonder if that use of the word "white" makes me prejudice or a racist?

You're kidding right? A few quotes of Sotomayor paying lip service and I've somehow hung myself, huh? Gee, I guess the mean old Poles really did pick that fight with poor Mr. Hitler after all--he said so! Either your credulity or intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. Why don't you post some of her unscripted remarks about race and gender issues? While you're at it, go out and read Ricci v. DeStefano. Don't forget her association with La Raza. (See Division for Public Education: National Hispanic Heritage Month -- Sonia Sotomayor if you don't believe she's a member.)

You think her comments re: appellate courts setting policy is just "real world" experience speaking? I'm in the business and I've worked at a state supreme court (the top appellate court in my state, not the trial court as in NY), and the VERY liberal justice I clerked for would be horrified to hear a judge make such remarks. Most honest attorneys would be, without regard to political inclination. Finally, her having worked in government or private practice means nothing. It's what attorneys do; the good ones, the bad ones, even those who go on to the presidency and end up disbarred. Some of us go public, some of us go private, and some of us have done both.

You want to delude yourself, fine, but you aren't going to fool anyone who looks into this bird's character. I oppose her because I believe that she is demonstrably a racist, that she lacks judicial temperament, and that her ability is, frankly, nothing special (this last quality she shares with Harriet Miers). Mind you, she may be a competent attorney, but that's a low bar to set for the position. She can do tremendous damage with activist voting on the Court, steering it toward policy by fiat, and her relatively high percentage of reversals should serve as a warning. You might want to look into your own political blind spots if you're really going to suggest that anyone opposed to Sotomayor is somehow opposed to judicial "thoughtfulness." I've had my say on the issue and won't waste the time to respond further. Have the decency to be honest in the debate.

Originally Posted by xman

"firmly believe in the rule of law"
"inspired by the achievement of our founding fathers"
"appreciate the variety of perspectives that present themselves in every case that I hear. ... understand respect and respond to the concerns and arguments of all litigants who appear before me".
~Sotomayor
Worked for government and private law firms.
yep, sure sounds dangerous to me, at least to anybody who is threatened by thoughtfulness, especially when it opposes one's political perspective.

I have some more rope here if you need it, but it looks to me like you've got more than enough already.

X