Page 33 of 41 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 409

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

  1. #321
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    There is only one way to interpret the law--only one correct way.

    That correct way is the way of Marbury v Madison--which examined the case, considered the applicable laws, weighed the statutory laws against the Constitution of the United States, and viewed the case objectively in light of what the law says. That correct way is to state with specificity what the law is, what the law allows, within the confines of the Constitution, and leave the notional questions of moral right and moral wrong to the legislatures.

    There is most assuredly one correct manner of interpretation. To argue or pretend otherwise is simply wrong.
    Dismissed. Bye bye

  2. #322
    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 celticlord View Post
    How wrong you are, let us count the ways....

    Lawyers and jurists argue various merits of the law, and dissect the law to ensure that all relevant matters are fairly and thoroughly explored. There are intellectually valid differences in what weights are accorded the various relevant matters, and it is fitting that a multiple of jurists discuss such differences to achieve a balanced result.

    The distinction is that the relevant matters are: the facts of the case, the applicable law, and the Constitution. The ethnicity and the gender of the jurist is not nor should ever be a relevant matter in deciding a court case.

    Sotomayor argues otherwise, and in that she is categorically wrong; in that, she is fundamentally at odds with over two centuries of American jurisprudence.

    Pretending that her stance is anything but a gross jurisprudential error is itself the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. It is the triumph of transitory identity politics over durable standards of judicial review. It is the rationalization of racism. It is nothing less than this. And it is wrong.
    I love love love you when it comes to this topic.

  3. #323
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    12-02-09 @ 05:13 PM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,695

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

    If only Alito would have followed the same rules that the right is crying about here.

    But he in his own stated words would not as a juror let his ethnicity or upbringing not be a part of his decisions and rulings.

    So in this case the Right doesn't have a leg to stand on....again.
    Last edited by goldendog; 05-29-09 at 09:18 PM.

  4. #324
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

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

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    I love love love you when it comes to this topic.
    Of course you do. He's feeding to your right-wing talking points.

  5. #325
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,425

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WillRockwell View Post
    I think the correct translation is "Let's keep this debate related to the qualifications of the candidate and avoid divisive racial remarks."
    Spot on.

    /thread
    *insert profound statement here*

  6. #326
    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 aps View Post
    Of course you do. He's feeding to your right-wing talking points.
    Actually I spent the time to read all up on this woman. Even spent time reading through the horrible dribble of some of her actual cases. I came to my decisions all on my own.

    But I'm nowhere near as good with words as my new crush is.

  7. #327
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

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

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    Actually I spent the time to read all up on this woman. Even spent time reading through the horrible dribble of some of her actual cases. I came to my decisions all on my own.

    But I'm nowhere near as good with words as my new crush is.
    So did you feel the same way about Alito?

  8. #328
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by talloulou View Post
    Actually I spent the time to read all up on this woman. Even spent time reading through the horrible dribble of some of her actual cases. I came to my decisions all on my own.

    But I'm nowhere near as good with words as my new crush is.
    I will vouch for talloulou on this. We spent a night a couple nights ago going over alot of details. She put a lot of effort into framing her (wrong) opinion.

  9. #329
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Causation or correlation amounts to the same thing here.
    Causation and correlation never amount to the same thing.

    You (and Sotomayor) are arguing the logical fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this").

    The short version of the rule is causation is not correlation. More properly, correlation (or covariance) is a necessary predicate for causation, thus the more accurate form is "Correlation is not equal to causation; it is only a requirement for it."

    Sotomayor, when she stated "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging," asserted more than correlation, she asserted causation (perversely, the assertion is demonstrably fatuous because she prefaced it by acknowledging total ignorance of the precise causal link).

    To assert that female jurists will rule differently because they are female, to assert that Latino and Latina jurists will rule differently because they are Latino or Latina, to assert that male jurists will rule differently because they are male, is to assert a differentiation based on gender and/or ethnicity; it is to assert that there is distinction and differentiation based on gender and/or ethnicity. There is no way to make such an assertion and not assert such a differentiation.

    If one argues a differentiation based on gender and ethnicity, if one argues a different jurisprudential model based on gender and ethnicity, then one cannot also argue for equal application of law, equal protection of the law, or even equality under the law. The two arguments are mutually exclusive.

    If one argues a differentiation based on gender and/or ethnicity, one forsakes Dr. King's dream, wherein people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

    Personally, I prefer this nation continue to strive for Dr. King's dream. It's a good dream.
    Last edited by celticlord; 05-29-09 at 09:42 PM.

  10. #330
    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 jallman View Post
    Is white a race? Did she not denigrate white men by saying that they are not capable of coming to decisions as good as someone else?

    Then it's a race issue.
    Nope !! The term 'old white' when has been used as a euphamism for a long time now to describe the SUPREMES. Actually even the Senate was not too long ago euphamistically refered to as a club for old white men.
    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

Page 33 of 41 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... 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
  •