Page 16 of 41 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 409

Thread: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

  1. #151
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,333
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I do think its a bit of your partisanship, but I can understand it. Here's where I'm coming from on it.

    My view is that by trying to call out the racist rhetoric its setting it up that anything even mentioning racist somehow equals racism. Its meant to make people walk on egg shells, so much so that LEGITIMATE concerns that may involve race are intimidated to keep quiet for fear of being labeled a racist because the Obama administration...after many on the left made it a point to use her sex and race as a bonus for her...deemed it now a non-issue.

    Yes, definitely, if some dumbass slack jawed republican went "I don't want no freaking wet back on the supreme court" then by all means, smack him down for the ignorant bigot he is. However, if someone states "I worry that this woman's race affects her view of how the law should be handled so much that it leads me to believe she will be a judge that views cases not simply through the eyes of the law but through the eyes of her ethnic and sexual views" that to me is not racist, yet THAT is the kind of thing being said FAR MORE than the former, would you not agree? And if you do agree, then what's the point in the White House coming out and telling people to "Be careful" about saying stuff that everyone already knows to discount?





    On the same token though...

    If there are 10 qualified candidates, all equal, but you find that this womans views based on her race in regards to, for instance, punishment and the differences that they should be enforced perhaps on a rich white male over a poor latin female, then is that not as acceptable of a reason to deny her in exchange for one of those other 9 qualified candidates as it is to qualify her based on her race and gender in the name of diversity?

    You might think the notion that people are bothered by that is moot because its not an issue. However, that does not make it racism. It just makes it a point you disagree with, much like people may disagree with the notion that somehow we specifically need to search and picked judges with "diversity" in mind simply to have a fair and just rule of law.
    Some really good questions in there. On racism and what what WH said: certain members of the far right are using strong rhetoric on race in this issue. It walks a fine line, and intentionally. You will also note that the ones being the loudest are ones not in public office.

    Further, there should be some evidence to base any concern that her ethnicity or gender would cause her to rule unfairly before making the assumption. I just got done reading the whole lecture where Sotomayer made her controversial statements, and nothing I see in there is to my mind a real concern. Talloulou disagrees tho, so I suppose I can see where some will think it is a possible issue. I have not yet seen any example of a ruling where her race or gender might have caused her to rule differently, though again I suspect talloulou is going to jump in here and disagree. I have done a whole lot of reading on this today, including the "New Haven" judgment(the original, not just the one paragraph appeals court decision she was involved in) and her speech, and a few other things, and I am having a hard time understanding the fuss.

  2. #152
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    07-27-09 @ 08:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    740

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    I like how Obama is all "well we need someone in there to interpret the law with compassion" and blah blah blah, we're talking about the constitution here. You don't need to "interpret" the Constitution, the **** isn't written in Chinese for christsakes.

  3. #153
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,333
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    I think there is definitely a value in diversity. But I think that value stems from the diversity seeing to it that no one "personal experience type" dominates over
    the courts ruling.

    It seems like the same thing but the difference is there -for me. Her being Latino is good because she will break up "the old white guy" club a bit more. If old white guys have similar experiences it is possible that this is effecting their rulings. However the diversity is NOT a plus if she views it as an opportunity to bring a PRO LATINO, or PRO woman, or pro- poor attitude to the court. Does that make sense? That's where she misses the mark. I don't care that she's Latino. I'd rather she go on and on about how she will add diversity to a predominate white man's club vs hear how excited she is to bring a Latino perspective. While the supreme court and all courts should be diverse judges need to be impartial and not seem gungho to be an "in" for whatever special interest group they pride themselves on being included in.
    See, this is where I think we just end up seeing things differently based on our different political views. I don't see her being "pro latino", or "pro woman". I see her saying what you are actually, that diversity is good, since it acts as a check on letting one groups viewpoint distort the proper vision of the law.

  4. #154
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,333
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    If you are viewing the law from an objective point of view, it is very clear.

    If you are ruling based on emotion, heart or whatever nonsense then the law becomes muddled with crap.
    if it was so clear, there would be no need for an appeals court, and yet we do need one. If the law was so crystal clear, we would not need a Supreme Court, and yet here we are arguing about a nominee for that court.

  5. #155
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    Well she did quote a socialist in her college yearbook. Odd choice if you're not a socialist.
    I am no fan of MARXISTS, Communists, or Russians but I would like to se what exactly she quoated. Was it "good day", or is good", or "war is better" ?
    “I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us “ f107HyperSabr

  6. #156
    Advisor FlappyTheKinkajou's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-09 @ 07:49 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    406

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    if it was so clear, there would be no need for an appeals court, and yet we do need one. If the law was so crystal clear, we would not need a Supreme Court, and yet here we are arguing about a nominee for that court.
    Maybe it is clear, and the people in the judicial system suck monkey mangina?
    Let's figure it out.

  7. #157
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    if it was so clear, there would be no need for an appeals court, and yet we do need one. If the law was so crystal clear, we would not need a Supreme Court, and yet here we are arguing about a nominee for that court.
    An Appeals court exists to review the cases in reference to the law.

    Not necessarily the law itself.

    Was all evidence presented factual, proper conduct followed, etc.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #158
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    if it was so clear, there would be no need for an appeals court, and yet we do need one. If the law was so crystal clear, we would not need a Supreme Court, and yet here we are arguing about a nominee for that court.
    That's almost what I said in another thread in a galaxy far far away!!!
    “I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us “ f107HyperSabr

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-28-11 @ 01:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    See, this is where I think we just end up seeing things differently based on our different political views. I don't see her being "pro latino", or "pro woman". I see her saying what you are actually, that diversity is good, since it acts as a check on letting one groups viewpoint distort the proper vision of the law.
    But she doesn't talk about balance and diversity so much as she sounds happy to represent. For me it's the things she says. She's in your face with the fact that she will bring her experiences to the court room. She sees this as matter of fact and is both prideful and somewhat bored with worrying over it. She never seems concerned that openly admitting that she carries her own baggage to court is worrisome. She seems like she would poo poo the whole idea of it being worrisome. She has given up on impartiality as a goal with the casualness that one would use to brush lint off their shoulder. Plus she views herself as a policy maker.

    But whatever ready or not she's coming.

  10. #160
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,333
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful'

    Quote Originally Posted by F107HyperSabr View Post
    I am no fan of MARXISTS, Communists, or Russians but I would like to se what exactly she quoated. Was it "good day", or is good", or "war is better" ?
    Her horrible socialist high school yearbook quote: "I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won." The quote is from Norman Thomas.

Page 16 of 41 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •