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.

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.

Originally Posted by mhailey

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

In this case, the contract is not changing itself.
A living person is changing the interpretation. It is up to other people to challenge that new interpretation, or to let it go unchallenged.

As I was explained recently by some of the US members here, this is what the supreme court is all about. Things get challenged almost all the time, and it is up to the supremes to decide which interpretation is the correct one.

Take the recent decision about the personal right to keep firearms.
It does not say that -literally- in the 2nd amendement. It can be -interpreted- that way. And only recently, the supreme court ruled that that interpretation was the correct one.

In this case, someone says X, and X will be challenged, and decided one way or another.

EDIT: So while the constitution is not a living and breating entity, the people interpreting it (as they were designed to do) change the interpretation all the time.

All politics, prejudices etc aside I wholeheartedly agree with VeeDubb65 / Steve.
Good relations are always reciprocal.
Keeping an eye on that can prevent from a lot of problems.

Originally Posted by Bruno

As I was explained recently by some of the US members here, this is what the supreme court is all about. Things get challenged almost all the time, and it is up to the supremes to decide which interpretation is the correct one.

Take the recent decision about the personal right to keep firearms.
It does not say that -literally- in the 2nd amendement. It can be -interpreted- that way. And only recently, the supreme court ruled that that interpretation was the correct one.

here is where "Originalism" comes into play.


This is the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted and applied as best we can determine WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT when they wrote it.

This pursuit can be aided by the massive amounts of writing done by some very prolific men.
If you use context then it is OH SO VERY clear what their intentions were.

For example.
I you read Locke's Second Treatise, Hobbes Leviathon, Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws
YOU WILL SEE EXACT PHRASES that were picked out

the context is CLEARLY given to anyone who cares to go look

"But why did thye copy a phrase from a book G.W.?"

it wasn't because they couldn't reword
it was because it gave ABSOLUTE CONTEXT

of course the Leftist seeks to pick apart the wording and ignore all obvious reference to earlier works
he seeks to twist and manipulate the language for his means

his stance is grounded in either ignorance or intentional deceit about the history of the philosophical advances that inspired our founders

He is either and idiot or a liar, or both.

THANK ME!

Here is an interesting thing about state v. federal rights.

The federal supersedes the state in so much as federal aid and help goes.

In other words as long as the states make no laws that go against what the federal gov't says is ok then they are fine. If they want to beef up a federal policy or law that is fine. They just cannot break that policy or law.

Example.
Montana for a time had no speed limits on its federal highways. Which is in direct controversion of federal law requiring a speed limit. As a result the federal gv't said replace the speed limits or lose federal funding. They did but in a back hand sort of way. They replaced the no speed limit with a "reasonable speed limit". That did not go over either so they reinstituted the speed limit policy.

Same thing on guns for states. A state cannot say flat out no guns here because we have the right to keep and bear etc etc. They can however restrict the right, ie taking a federal law/policy and tweeking it.

If a federal law says you must wait 21 days to purchase a hand gun, a state can say yeah thats nice but I think 90 days is better. That is perfectly legal. They cannot however say that 20.5 days is ok.

The curve ball to all this is that states have individual constitutions that can fly in the face of the federal constitution. In those cases the federal constitution can win out. I am not a constitutional expert so I do not feel very comfortable here. I know that in Oregon our constitution has some odd things in it that are not allowed or frowned on by the federal gv't.

FWIW.

In short if you know that a federal law says X and your state says Y and you want X go tell it on the mountain, or highest point where you live. Grab an elected officials ear, campaign, or get signatures.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

you've been warned

Ahab ~ I don't know what you are talking about. I have been subjected to verbal abuse by you, but that does not rise to the level of a warning.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

I don't know what this means. Is this blogspeak? Kindly unpack the meaning. Thank you!

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

For example. I you read Locke's Second Treatise, Hobbes Leviathon, Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws ... YOU WILL SEE EXACT PHRASES that were picked out ... it was because it gave ABSOLUTE CONTEXT

GWH ~ pursue your own argument just a little further down that road, and it will lead you to its own weakness. Locke, Hobbes and Montesquieu do not provide absolute anything. Philosophers and thinkers have been reading and interpreting their work for centuries. And in turn, their works were influenced by those that came before them. Your problem now becomes that you are pinning the "singular" meaning of the Constitution on shifting sands.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

of course the Leftist seeks to pick apart the wording and ignore all obvious reference to earlier works ... his stance is grounded in either ignorance or intentional deceit about the history of the philosophical advances that inspired our founders ... He is either and idiot or a liar, or both.

There is serious philosophical debate on this. Originalism is one school of thought. People who hold opposing, or simply different, views are not for that reason foolish or dishonest.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

He is either and idiot or a liar, or both.

To make this statement about anyone who believes the constitution should evolve with the society in which it is used as a base is odd. I understand that there are different schools of thought on the topic. I do not think you are an idiot or liar because your (well informaed) opinion is different than mine, and I would appreciate the same courtesy. Of course, if you DO actually think me an idiot and a liar, then I will just try to prove you wrong through my words. Not today, though, as I am busy interpreting terribly complex contracts, that many highly intelligent people were involved in the creation of, though now there are lenghty discussions over the appropriate course of action, as THINGS HAVE CHANGED.
(the fact that I really am doing that today just makes it even cooler.)

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