• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

Is she qualified? Sure.

But I'm just making the point, that experience in and of itself is not a qualifier. Its being bandied about that she has more experience than any other SCJ had when they were nominated. I'm simply pointing out that experience does not necessarily equate to talent, skill, or knowledge. I'm not saying she isn't any of those things, but just that it shouldn't be assumed because of her experience.

Experience can be indicative of talent, skill or knowledge. That is, all other things being equal, experience suggests a larger likelihood of talent skill and knowledge.
 
Experience can be indicative of talent, skill or knowledge. That is, all other things being equal, experience suggests a larger likelihood of talent skill and knowledge.

Can be. But shouldn't be assumed. You've worked on F/A-18s. You probably saw that there were some experienced guys who didn't know their elbow from their asshole.
 
"is Sotomayer qualified to be a supreme court justice" -
-1 The test for qualification is not to be based upon political leanings or whether we agreed or not with her decisions.
-2 Does she know the law ? Well it appears that she does since she has the schooling and has been a judge for a good number of years = experience.
-3 Do you disagree with any or all of her rulings ? see item # 1

-4 Is she intelligent enough to sing with the Supremes ? Well her school record does indicate intelligence.

Well is she qualified ???

ok let's see ???? acedemic qualification = yes
inteligent ?? GRADUATED WITH HONORS FROM PRINCETON
EXPERINCE = MANY YEARS ON THE BENCH/ PRIVATE PRACTICE/ AG

If any of us think she is not qualified we will need to come up with the criteria for what qualified means. What that cannot mean is whether we agree with her rulings or not.

The question is will she weigh each case without prejudice !!!!!????

Well personally I need to thinK about that.....

You forgot to add:

Believes ones personal "journey" and gender and race factor into how they judge, and how judges should act.


That is what disqualifies her.
 
Can be. But shouldn't be assumed. You've worked on F/A-18s. You probably saw that there were some experienced guys who didn't know their elbow from their asshole.

Absolutely correct.
 
What you quote is the defendants argument, not the judges I believe.



The defendant(the city in this case) had the burden of proof to show they where acting "in good faith" to comply with Title VII, which the judge gives them credit for. This means that plaintiff has to show he was a victim of intentional discrimination, which the judge did not feel was the case.

After all this, next time I read a Grisholm book, I won't even feel a twinge that it might be fun to be a lawyer.

They did show they were discriminated against IMO. Title VII says nowhere that a test must or even should be deemed obsolete garbage just because a surprising number of white men and a Hispanic scored high while black men did not.

The proof is obvious. The test was issued to see which fire fighters would be promoted to lieutenant or captain. The "pc correct ratio" of skin colors did not perform as desired. Thus the test was deemed racist. There is no proof whatsoever that the test was racist and there is NOTHING in Title VII saying that ratio results may be used to determine whether or not an employment test was prejudiced.

This is point blank reverse racism where the top scorers are punished because some have a problem with most of them being white as opposed to more diverse.
 
They did show they were discriminated against IMO. Title VII says nowhere that a test must or even should be deemed obsolete garbage just because a surprising number of white men and a Hispanic scored high while black men did not.

The proof is obvious. The test was issued to see which fire fighters would be promoted to lieutenant or captain. The "pc correct ratio" of skin colors did not perform as desired. Thus the test was deemed racist. There is no proof whatsoever that the test was racist and there is NOTHING in Title VII saying that ratio results may be used to determine whether or not an employment test was prejudiced.

This is point blank reverse racism where the top scorers are punished because some have a problem with most of them being white as opposed to more diverse.

I will dig into it more...but not now. Hockey game starting, so I am going to be too distracted to dig into something as thick and slow going as that stupid decision.
 
You forgot to add:

Believes ones personal "journey" and gender and race factor into how they judge, and how judges should act.


That is what disqualifies her.

Yup, that is your opinion. Opinion is a key and descriptive word here. The court renders opinions. What are opinions based upon ? Hopefully facts, but let's face it it involves experiences, interpretation of law, interpretations or applications of prior opinions, and we all know that the personal philosophy has to enter even it is at the subconscious level.

A judge is a human not a computer. A computer will add 2 plus 2 and will come up with the answer 4 from now to enterinity.

A human will ask is that first number really a 2 ? Should we really be adding these two numbers ? Are there other numbers which should be considered ?
Does the numeric values of 2 apply in this case ?
 
Last edited:
You forgot to add:

Believes ones personal "journey" and gender and race factor into how they judge, and how judges should act.


That is what disqualifies her.

Well I believe that every judge brings his own personal "journey" and gender and race factor into how they judge. Also they bring their experiences and the attitudes of the social or economic class that they came from.

So based upon that we need to disqualify all of the Supremes!!
 
Yup, that is your opinion. Opinion is a key and descriptive word here. The court renders opinions. What are opinions based upon ? Hopefully facts, but let's face it it involves experiences, interpretation of law, interpretations or applications of prior opinions, and we all know that the personal philosophy has to enter even it is at the subconscious level.

A judge is a human not a computer. A computer will add 2 plus 2 and will come up with the answer 4 from now to enterinity.

A human will ask is that first number really a 2 ? Should we really be adding these two numbers ? Are there other numbers which should be considered ?
Does the numeric values of 2 apply in this case ?

I see you missed that... damned able piece of PAPER the Constitution. Ya know, I know this sounds odd to some people, but regardless of who you are as judge, and whom the plaintiffs are... that piece of paper trumps all. If you cannot accept that, work with that reality... ya shouldn't be on the bench... EVER.
 
I see you missed that... damned able piece of PAPER the Constitution. Ya know, I know this sounds odd to some people, but regardless of who you are as judge, and whom the plaintiffs are... that piece of paper trumps all. If you cannot accept that, work with that reality... ya shouldn't be on the bench... EVER.

NO NO NO AND NO, I did not miss anything!!! I take it that yes the Constitutuion is obviously the starting point but what you may be forgetting or ignoring is that the Constitution no matter how great a document it is there is always the possibility that an "interpretation" of that great document is needed. Let's face it if there no question as to whether a case is answerable by the words of the Constitution and if no interpretation was ever needed there would be no cases coming up to the Supreme Court therefore we would not need a Supreme Court.
 
NO NO NO AND NO, I did not miss anything!!! I take it that yes the Constitutuion is obviously the starting point but what you may be forgetting or ignoring is that the Constitution no matter how great a document it is there is always the possibility that an "interpretation" of that great document is needed. Let's face it if there no question as to whether a case is answerable by the words of the Constitution and if no interpretation was ever needed there would be no cases coming up to the Supreme Court therefore we would not need a Supreme Court.

Actually, I agree with you on that, and my problem is not with her being an activist judge who would legislate from the bench. I agree that this is kind of a BS talking point from my side. However, what I AM concerned with is her interpretation of the Constitution, which IMHO, is just about as bad as legislating from the bench. I want a justice who is going to interpret the Constitution strictly, and she clearly does not meet that standard.
 
Back
Top Bottom