Results 31 to 33 of 33
Thread: sotomayor scares me!
-
05-30-2009, 07:17 PM #31
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 1,034
Thanked: 150Wow 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!!
MattLast edited by mhailey; 05-30-2009 at 07:27 PM.
-
05-30-2009, 07:52 PM #32
-
05-30-2009, 08:01 PM #33
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.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Ironbeard For This Useful Post:
gratewhitehuntr (05-30-2009)