• 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!

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

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a pointed warning to opponents of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination Wednesday, urging critics to measure their words carefully during a politically charged confirmation debate.

“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation,” Gibbs said.

He was replying to a question from CBS’s Chip Reid about a blog post by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accusing Sotomayor of imposing identity politics on the bench and declaring: “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”

In 2001, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer drew criticism in the press for suggesting Americans “need to watch what they say” in the overheated aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.


Read more: "W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful' - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com" - W.H. to Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful' - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com
Translation?
Don't you even think of raising any objections or else.
 
When is the revolution going to start? Jut tell me a time and place, and I'm there.
 
Translation?
Don't you even think of raising any objections or else.

I think the correct translation is "Let's keep this debate related to the qualifications of the candidate and avoid divisive racial remarks."
 
I think the correct translation is "Let's keep this debate related to the qualifications of the candidate and avoid divisive racial remarks."

You mean like her racist remarks are now off limits?
 
He was replying to a question from CBS’s Chip Reid about a blog post by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accusing Sotomayor of imposing identity politics on the bench and declaring: “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”

I think the reference was about the use of 'race' in this process. Criticise her on her qualifications.
 
I think the reference was about the use of 'race' in this process. Criticise her on her qualifications.

So you can use her race if you want to praise her, but not if you want to criticize her.
 
I think the reference was about the use of 'race' in this process. Criticise her on her qualifications.

Imagine a white male saying the below:

"Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," he declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life."

I think that would get him disqualified right there, for assuming that race, gender... have any place in the court room.

However...

In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," she declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
The 'Empathy' Nominee - WSJ.com

Is okay.. cause she has the right skin color and political views. Amazing isn't it?
 
So you can use her race if you want to praise her, but not if you want to criticize her.

Its stupid to praise someone on race alone but she is not exactly unqualified now is she? But whatever rocks their boat, i am merely clarifying what i think WH was saying 'be careful' on.
 
Its stupid to praise someone on race alone but she is not exactly unqualified now is she? But whatever rocks their boat, i am merely clarifying what i think WH was saying 'be careful' on.

I'm in a place right now where I think that anybody who is a leftist or somebody supported by Obama is unqualified.
 
I'm in a place right now where I think that anybody who is a leftist or somebody supported by Obama is unqualified.

Her education and experience speaks for itself.
Its not like she is some nobody plucked off the road and stuck on the SC.
 
Her education and experience speaks for itself.
Its not like she is some nobody plucked off the road and stuck on the SC.

I am sure she experienced the proper indoctrination and displays the proper titles.
 
Translation?
Don't you even think of raising any objections or else.

You know, V, this Administration is constantly making such thinly veiled threats. I am pretty fed up with the arrogance I see though I cannot say I am surprised by it.
 
Her education and experience speaks for itself.
Its not like she is some nobody plucked off the road and stuck on the SC.

So a good resume trumps all?
 
So a good resume trumps all?

Beats having no experience or education, so in that sense she is qualified for SC. Whether you agree with her is another issue.
No one must have seriously expected a Democrat president to nominate a strict constructionist, conservative justice right?
 
Beats having no experience or education, so in that sense she is qualified for SC. Whether you agree with her is another issue.
No one must have seriously expected a Democrat president to nominate a strict constructionist, conservative justice right?

The Supreme Court has no room for living constitution ****heads.
 
Translation?
Don't you even think of raising any objections or else.

Are you guys kidding? More partisan spin? If the words were not cherry picked one could easily see that she was not using racist remarks.

Fox News host Megyn Kelly and ABC correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg misrepresented a remark that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, made in a speech delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, claiming that she suggested, in Kelly's words, "that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges." In fact, when Sotomayor asserted, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining race and sex discrimination cases. As Media Matters for America has noted, former Bush Justice Department lawyer John Yoo has similarly stressed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas "is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him" and argued that Thomas' work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the less fortunate acquired through personal experience.

Here is the full link: Fox's Kelly, ABC's Greenburg skew Sotomayor remark about "Latina," "white male" judges | Media Matters for America

Can we please put such ridiculous matters to rest?
 
So you admit that they don't care about justice or the constitution?

What has that got to do with anything?
You don't get to decide what the SC needs or don't. The power is in the hand of the Senate and President.
 
Last edited:
I think the correct translation is "Let's keep this debate related to the qualifications of the candidate and avoid divisive racial remarks."

I think the reference was about the use of 'race' in this process. Criticise her on her qualifications.

More than happy to do this if many leftists, including some on this forum such as aps, aren't sitting here telling us its a good confirmation and a needed one because she's female and hispanic.

You can't say "racial issues are a benefit to her being nominated" and then turn around and go "you can't talk about racial issues".
 
What has that got to do with anything?
You don't get to decide what the SC needs or don't. The power is in the hand of the Senate and President.

Power=justice. Noted.
 
Back
Top Bottom