• 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

aps said:
Oh brother. I think she understands that her answer needed to be more nuanced. Maybe because I am a lawyer, I understand this better. I dunno. But I am stunned by the number of people who are hysterical about this. I dont' know what laws you all think are so clear that a court never has to really think about how to apply the law to a set of facts.
Click to expand...

Nuance is important in judicial opinions. She seems to have an issue with that on a larger scope than just this one particular incidence.
 
She's been smacked down by appellate courts and the Supreme Court, says Rush, and that bodes ill for her.
 
talloulou said:
I fully expect a more leftist leaning judge. I even expected a minority and a woman based on knowing how Obama loves to please. I just don't particularly like this woman based on her weak opinion in the firefighter case and her pronouncement that policy making is a matter of course.
Click to expand...

Please answer this question.

Here is our Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
Click to expand...

Can you provide me the definition of what "probable cause" is? Is it defined in the Fourth Amendment? No? The Supreme Court has made rulings regarding what constitutes probable cause. Each time they make a ruling, it sets policy. The same goes for Circuit Court decisions that (1) are not appealed to the Supreme Court or (2) are denied cert by the Supreme Court.

This business of claiming that courts don't set policy is beyond my comprehension. Really.
 
Redress said:
I am sure that is a consideration, but it's not the only qualifier...ie, having a hispanic and a female nominee is a plus politically, but only if she can make it through the process. Having a hispanic and a female nominee also helps in terms of having a diverse makeup on the court, which I find to be a positive. Assigning a single motive to this pick is I think oversimplifying.

I am entertained at how, as soon as I saw who the pick was, I knew exactly how our republican and right wing friends where going to react. Hell, they have been telling us for awhile now, laying the groundwork for their complaints. That is about as far is things will go, complaining, as unless something is dug up on her new, she will almost certainly be confirmed.
Click to expand...

Well to me, i don't care how representative judges or politicans are. As long as they can do their job, their race or gender means little to me but i know race issues in US differ to here because of its history.

I'm just waiting to see how the republicans react. They will have to tread carefully imo.
Politicans are after votes and winning elections, and alienating the largest [and still growing] voting bloc in US will not be very clever will it?
 
talloulou said:
Nuance is important in judicial opinions. She seems to have an issue with that on a larger scope than just this one particular incidence.
Click to expand...

I was talking about her words--not her opinions. I noticed you completely ignored the substance of my post.
 
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...
The Dred Scott decision decided that Blacks were not people, they were property and did not deserve the same constitutional rights as Whites....That was a pretty damning decision that took another 100 years to correct. The policy that Blacks were inferior still permeates today in places that the Republicans consider to be their strongholds...and the Dred Scott decision was in the 1850s.
 
tlmorg02 said:
You bring facts from one who cherry-picks from the whole story. If you brought complete facts then I would not say a word. If it were Keith Oberman, I would rail the same. I have said I do not like some of her record, and thanked you for the other facts you have brought, but Rush does not tell both sides.
Click to expand...

Maybe I need to introduce you to how forums work?

By reading all the posters you get a cross-section of an issue in it's entirety.

Seldom do you ever find one poster who has the entire objective story on a topic or else every thread would have only one post.
 
Re: Conservative groups criticize Sotomayor pick

Family Guy said:
The Dred Scott decision decided that Blacks were not people, they were property and did not deserve the same constitutional rights as Whites....That was a pretty damning decision that took another 100 years to correct. The policy that Blacks were inferior still permeates today in places that the Republicans consider to be their strongholds...and the Dred Scott decision was in the 1850s.
Click to expand...

Please stfu, you have no idea what your talking about.

I'd imagine that we in the south have better racial relations than you in the north do solely because we have lived so close together for so long.
 
Re: Conservative groups criticize Sotomayor pick

Family Guy said:
The Dred Scott decision decided that Blacks were not people, they were property and did not deserve the same constitutional rights as Whites....That was a pretty damning decision that took another 100 years to correct. The policy that Blacks were inferior still permeates today in places that the Republicans consider to be their strongholds...and the Dred Scott decision was in the 1850s.
Click to expand...

I know well the Dred Scott case, it was something that the North had to continuously deal with during the years prior to succession. You are right about the policy still being around I am afraid.
 
Laila said:
Well to me, i don't care how representative judges or politicans are. As long as they can do their job, their race or gender means little to me but i know race issues in US differ to here because of its history.

I'm just waiting to see how the republicans react. They will have to tread carefully imo.
Politicans are after votes and winning elections, and alienating the largest [and still growing] voting bloc in US will not be very clever will it?
Click to expand...

In a perfect world, none of that would matter. It's not such a perfect world though sadly. The Supreme Court has for so long been totally WASP dominated, that when we can change that makeup I think it is a positive, as long as we can do that without jeopardizing the job of the court.
 
aps said:
I was talking about her words--not her opinions. I noticed you completely ignored the substance of my post.
Click to expand...

Because I disagree with the substance on principal.

Take prop 8. Now I think gays should be allowed to marry. I think it's inevitable and will likely be a non-issue by the time my kids are having kids.

However, were I judge the fact that I think that means nothing. The fact that I want that to happen means nothing. Unless I can find a way to show that the law supports my thinking I can not uphold my opinion as law, nor can I set policy by writing opinions on what I think that are not supported by the law in some way. I would have to find a way to show that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional.

I think that Sotomayer thinks it matters that she is a minority, that it matters that she has a vagina, and that her job is to set policy. Rather than looking at the laws I think she thinks about what the law should be in her mind. This is why her opinions are often attacked as weak, missing the point, etc.
 
Last edited:
bhkad said:
Legislating from the bench is a no no but, according to Rush, she sees it as her prerogative.

In addition, he calls her a reverse racist.

Limbaugh calls Sotomayor "a reverse racist," appointed by "the greatest living example of a reverse racist" | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...
It's good to see the Spokesman for the Party of No has called her a racist, already! Couldn't be happier that he did so.

So let's see...there are now about 5% of Black Americans who vote Republican and the more the GOP fights her appointment the more Hispanic voters will vote for Democrats...Rush is such a retard that he took the bait, hook line and sinker and I'm betting so will all of the other Party of No "leaders" thus condemning themselves to be a minority (ironic word don't you think) party for a generation....
 
bhkad said:
Maybe I need to introduce you to how forums work?

By reading all the posters you get a cross-section of an issue in it's entirety.

Seldom do you ever find one poster who has the entire objective story on a topic or else every thread would have only one post.
Click to expand...

Pardon me then sir, when I post threads I try to use only evenly balanced stories. I feel that the hyper-partisanship ruins good discussions because it thrusts each side to the extreme of an issue. But I in no way wish to impune you, rather your source of this topic. I have read your other posts and found them very well thought out.
 
Redress said:
In a perfect world, none of that would matter. It's not such a perfect world though sadly. The Supreme Court has for so long been totally WASP dominated, that when we can change that makeup I think it is a positive, as long as we can do that without jeopardizing the job of the court.
Click to expand...

I understand and US is very different to our courts so i can see why a court that represents and reflects the diversity of citizens matter.
 
talloulou said:
Because I disagree with the substance on principal.

Take prop 8. Now I think gays should be allowed to marry. I think it's inevitable and will likely be a non-issue by the time my kids are having kids.

However, were I judge the fact that I think that means nothing. The fact that I want that to happen means nothing. Unless I can find a way to show that the law supports my thinking I can not uphold my opinion as law, nor can I set policy by writing opinions on what I think that are not supported by the law in some way. I would have to find a way to show that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional.

I think that Sotomayer thinks it matters that she is a minority, that it matters that she has a vagina, and that her job is to set policy. Rather than looking at the laws I think she thinks about what the law should be in her mind. This is why her opinions are often attacked as weak, missing the point, etc.
Click to expand...

I am amazed at your conclusions of this woman when I doubt you have read more than one opinion she has written. If you have read several, share them with me so I can read them and see if I can come up with your same conclusions.
 
Laila said:
I understand and US is very different to our courts so i can see why a court that represents and reflects the diversity of citizens matter.
Click to expand...

I need to get over to England again someday. You all are just awesome to talk to.
 
Redress said:
I need to get over to England again someday. You all are just awesome to talk to.
Click to expand...

Lol
I'll swap with you for a while :2wave:
We don't even have a supreme court. We have law lords. I'm so jealous sometimes of US politics.
 
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...





Wrong. He could have picked the biggest kook the left could have found. If he/she ruled based on law and not make law, I'd have no problem with it.
 
talloulou said:
Here's a good article to get you started.

Sotomayor’s Notable Court Opinions and Articles - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...

LOL I was just on there in the meantime (after I responded to your last post). So which decision should I read that will cause me to come to the conclusions that you have? In the Ricci case, I see she has voted with the majority. According to this article, it looks like it's going to be a 5-4 decision on the Supreme Court. What does that tell me? That her ruling (which was not just her ruling but the ruling of a panel of 3) is debatable. It's not like the Supreme Court is going to vote 9-0 against the 2nd Circuit's ruling. If that was the case, I might question her legal reasoning. But when it's close like this, that tells me that there's a reasonable debate for both sides.
 
bhkad said:
She's been smacked down by appellate courts and the Supreme Court, says Rush, and that bodes ill for her.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that anyone give's a rat's ass what Rush thinks?

As I wrote before the more Republicans that sound like Rush the bigger the Democrat Party becomes.
 
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...

Where in the world does that fit into judging.

What happen to this notion that Justice is Blind?

The Consequences of their judgement based on the racial and economic status? What? So a white above average income male and a relatively poor hispanic woman get arrested for the exact same crime and somehow the judgements and consequences should be different not on ANY legal fact but simply because of their race, financial standing, and sex?

This is law to you?
 
Family Guy said:
Why do you think that anyone give's a rat's ass what Rush thinks?

As I wrote before the more Republicans that sound like Rush the bigger the Democrat Party becomes.
Click to expand...




It's not about what Rush thinks. Its a fact. She has been turned over, many many many times.
 
aps said:
LOL I was just on there in the meantime (after I responded to your last post). So which decision should I read that will cause me to come to the conclusions that you have? In the Ricci case, I see she has voted with the majority. According to this article, it looks like it's going to be a 5-4 decision on the Supreme Court. What does that tell me? That her ruling (which was not just her ruling but the ruling of a panel of 3) is debatable. It's not like the Supreme Court is going to vote 9-0 against the 2nd Circuit's ruling. If that was the case, I might question her legal reasoning. But when it's close like this, that tells me that there's a reasonable debate for both sides.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if reasonable, well thought out posts like this one should be allowed in an emotional debate like people are having on this nomination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom