• 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

Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic

Intransigent Atheist said:
Interesting article in Wikipedia. It seems that in the US there is a conception, or misconception as the case may be, that Hispanic is the same as Latino.
Click to expand...

MrVicchio said:
How very racist.
Click to expand...

If anything Latino people should really be considered Native Americans.
 
danarhea said:
What disturbs me about the pick are the following:

1) The New Haven Case - Ironically, she could be hearing the final appeal of a decision that she herself had made.

2) Ordering baseball club owners to settle with the players, in the strike that resulted in no World Series in 1995.

3) Her controversial statement that whether someone before her court was a man or a woman, or the race of someone before her court, would be factors in her rulings.


Sum it all up, and Sotomayor is an activist judge with an activist agenda. I support a Republican filibuster on this nominee.

Here is her bio, and for those who value the Constitution, it is not pretty.
Click to expand...

I don't see the Republicans having a succesful filibuster; to many Dems in the senate, and Collins and Snowe are not rightwing Idealouges like most other Republican senators. Plus, Republican senators in states where there is a substantional Hispanic population (yeah you, Kyle and McCain etc.) had better weigh their votes carefully. The face of this country is changing, and many believe the leaders should reflect that change. Call it race baiting, gender baiting, whatever you want, as long as you call it a fact; becuase it's the truth, and just the way it is.
 
Jerry said:
It's the Supreme Court, not Congress.

Their genders and races are completely irrelevant. Only their ability to interpret maters.
Click to expand...

So why can't a Latina be qulitifed to interpret? I don't get your point here....
 
Re: Conservative groups criticize Sotomayor pick

tlmorg02 said:
Empathy and a sense of what laws translate into for people. The sense is that wealthy white men have no idea what the consequences of their judgments are on those of other races and economic status.
Click to expand...

In this case I agree with her statement. Context is key.
 
Re: Sotomayor nominated to high court — first Hispanic

Let me be the first to congratulate Justice Sotomizer on her nomination! :happy:

:2wave:
 
Re: Conservative groups criticize Sotomayor pick

talloulou said:
I'm against any judge, right or left, who thinks "making policy," is thier job.
Click to expand...

When has the court "made policy," please some evidence. In Brown vs Board of Education, the court simply struck down an unconstitutional law. As is their job. They protect the minority from the majority.
 
Re: Conservative groups criticize Sotomayor pick

tlmorg02 said:
Protecting the people under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That's not eh JOB of the courts. That's a legislative duty.

The courts, especially the SCOTUS is there to take a law, and judge it against the Constitution, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Re: Conservative groups criticize Sotomayor pick

tlmorg02 said:
When has the court "made policy," please some evidence. In Brown vs Board of Education, the court simply struck down an unconstitutional law. As is their job. They protect the minority from the majority.
Click to expand...

roe vs wade.
 
Re: Conservative groups criticize Sotomayor pick

MrVicchio said:
That's not eh JOB of the courts. That's a legislative duty.

The courts, especially the SCOTUS is there to take a law, and judge it against the Constitution, nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

Uh, right and they do so in order to make sure that state or federal laws do not infringe upon rights. That IS protecting the people.
 
Re: Conservative groups criticize Sotomayor pick

talloulou said:
roe vs wade.
Click to expand...

I have read that case and cannot defend it. I support limited abortion rights, but the argument made by the court was indeed weak.
 
Laila said:
Well this decision doesn't affect me at all but it will be very interesting to watch confirmation process for the first time. I do like her but just from reading this thread, i can see not everyone is excited about this pick.
Click to expand...

A lot of times the Supreme Court pick acts one way till after they get confirmed and then their true colors show.

I'm not comfortable with this person because she has shown that she favors affirmative action policies which are unconstitutional.
 
tlmorg02 said:
I am so glad Rush has told us how to think, whew, almost thought for myself.
Click to expand...

When he bring up facts to consider you count yourself among those who'd rather remain ignorant, I see.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
"“court of appeals is where policy is made.”



there is nothing to interpret here.
Click to expand...

However, some who are hell bent on trashing any nominee who isn't to the right of Scalia have already "interpreted" that comment to mean that she advocates some kind of judicial activism.

I saw the video and it seemed to me that she was describing how the court system works at different stages. The appeals court has the job of examining appeals to determine their constitutionality - "making policy" if you will.
 
Birdzeye said:
However, some who are hell bent on trashing any nominee who isn't to the right of Scalia have already "interpreted" that comment to mean that she advocates some kind of judicial activism.

I saw the video and it seemed to me that she was describing how the court system works at different stages. The appeals court has the job of examining appeals to determine their constitutionality - "making policy" if you will.
Click to expand...

She realized she was being recorded and covered up, for the lefties, that's more then enough to give her a pass.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A lot of times the Supreme Court pick acts one way till after they get confirmed and then their true colors show.

I'm not comfortable with this person because she has shown that she favors affirmative action policies which are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I was watching BBC and CNN and it says she sort of 'unknown' on her stances on gay marriage and Abortion etc.
So hey, you never know Republicans. She may be appointed and switch. Be optimistic.

If it's unconstitutional, why has it not been overturned? Simple question i know but i'm just curious.
 
Last edited:
tlmorg02 said:
I am so glad Rush has told us how to think, whew, almost thought for myself.
Click to expand...

I thought about your comment some more and realized that you ARE being told how to think, but by the 'drive-by media'.
 
Birdzeye said:
However, some who are hell bent on trashing any nominee who isn't to the right of Scalia have already "interpreted" that comment to mean that she advocates some kind of judicial activism.

I saw the video and it seemed to me that she was describing how the court system works at different stages. The appeals court has the job of examining appeals to determine their constitutionality - "making policy" if you will.
Click to expand...

I completely understand that I can expect certain types of appointees by Obama. I'm not looking for him to appoint even a moderate let alone someone even slightly right.

However even she knows that what she said was unacceptable and wrong. The unforgivable part was the way she was slightly amused by it.
 
bhkad said:
When he bring up facts to consider you count yourself among those who'd rather remain ignorant, I see.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...

No, I prefer scholarly, unprejudiced information. Not one-sided info from a angry partisan. Subscribing to such on either side is true ignorance. Listening to those who always agree with your position is not real info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom