• 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'

talloulou said:
I think when you read her speech in its entirety the whole thing only becomes more worrisome. Blah blah blahing on about everything from pig intestines to beaming with pride that inevitably her being a woman and a Hispanic will absolutely effect her ruling on the bench. She's overcome with elation about this, has zero shame, and makes no apologies from what I can tell. Her biggest concern seems to be limited to getting more people of color and women on the bench so that together they can exact change and measure that change with the acuity with which they proudly measure skin color I suppose.

She's all about being Latino. Beaming with her Latino-ness and her femaleness and how she can't wait for that to have it's effect on the bench and her rulings.

Heaven help us. As a woman I'm embarrassed.

I can only imagine if a man went on about his manliness and his cultural upbringing of steak and potatoes and how he positively can't wait for his dick and pale skin to have an effect on his rulings, an inevitable effect, one he is proud of.

The speech reeks of, "Do not be blind to color. COLOR IS ALL THAT GOD DAMN MATTERS...that and HAVING A VAGINA!

Good freaking lord.
Click to expand...

So you are upset somehow that speaking at an event dedicated to diversity in the law profession, that she talks about being a women and a latina in the law profession? Wow, can't understand why she would talk about that....
 
tlmorg02 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know of course not Latino women are more qualified to make certain judgments than white males, that is not racist or sexist at all. :roll:

Oh and media does matter but not to mediamatters. ;)
 
MrVicchio said:
Yeah, time to try that third world approach of socialism and mediocrity.

Instead of changing America, why not move to a country that suits you? I know that's a crazy concept, but really if America sucks being a country of individual freedom, personal liberty and it's up to you whether you succeed or fail isn't your gig..

GTFO.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that her being "latino American" makes her "third world"?


You would prefer the old white fart Neaderthal way of doing things?
 
Redress said:
So you are upset somehow that speaking at an event dedicated to diversity in the law profession, that she talks about being a women and a latina in the law profession? Wow, can't understand why she would talk about that....
Click to expand...

No I'm upset about how she talks about it. And how she completely misses the point which should be that in the eyes of the law we are all equal and a female judge or a latino judge is as equally capable of handing down rulings. Justice is color blind. I expect her to tell those kids that she is proud of where she came from and how she got where she is now because it shows that skin color matters less, that having a vagina matters less.

What she did instead was the opposite. She told those kids skin color is everything, being latino will be paramount to what she brings to the bench, etc.

Rather than be a model of someone who has overcome racism and gender stereotypes she has chosen to be an anchor for keeping the two alive for as long as she lives and breathes. She gets no kudos.
 
I am a minority & experienced prejudice

goldendog said:
A intelligent latino woman would be just the change this country needs on the Supreme Court..

The chances are really good that the will act in more of a responsible manner than any of the old white farts that have been in Washington over the last eight years who were only concerned about their party. That's why they had no problems with dragging our country into the sewer before they got booted out.

Bye Bye old white fart politics.....good riddance..
Click to expand...

Golden, you may be a bit harsh on some of these "old farts “but I think that your sentiment is in the right place.

What some of these people do not want to understand that there are those of us who bring something to a political or legal process because of background and or experience? I am a minority and I have experienced prejudice. I am also White and a male and I am an immigrant. I was very young when I came here so I do not have an accent and I do not dress in funny robes or hats or turbans so it's not obvious that I am an immigrant.

I recall when I was a little kid and I was riding a bike with training wheels a woman came out of the Baptist Church from across the street and started yelling me. The Bitch said "you little DP, you come here to take our jobs and our rents, you only like Yankee dollars you don't like Yankees".

I went in to ask my Mother what a DP was. Well it's a DISPLACED PERSON!!
Many of us came here after WW II from Europe and we were "Displaced" because my parents could not go back to their country since the Communists took over when the filthy Russians invaded. I also know what it feels like to be asked why don't I change my name to a “real American name” my answer is which one? Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or Quindío, Mohegan, Algonquian, or Pequot.

Did this experience leave me angry or vindictive, no !! What it did leave me with is the ability to understand what it took this woman to get where she got. I also can understand that for some of you when you say that she is not qualified I have to ask why / am it because she does not have a "real American" name? Is she less smart because her name isn't Smith? Some of you may think so at least subconsciously. Yet you will not say that you will find other excuse to call her unqualified.

I know that some of you think that way, why, because I have experienced it!!!!
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
So you are upset somehow that speaking at an event dedicated to diversity in the law profession, that she talks about being a women and a latina in the law profession? Wow, can't understand why she would talk about that....
Click to expand...

I can't understand why being Latino and female makes one more qualified to make certain judgments than being Caucasian and male. Again law is objective not subjective this is an automatic disqualification.
 
Agent Ferris said:
I can't understand why being Latino and female makes one more qualified to make certain judgments than being Caucasian and male. Again law is objective not subjective this is an automatic disqualification.
Click to expand...

being a judge requires interpretion and that requires both objective components and there are subjective components.
 
Do you even understand what impartial means? You need to leave your own past experiences, biases, prejudices, sympathies, apathies, etc at the door. You need to check them when you put that robe on and if you can not you're in the wrong field. If you think bringing them like a chip, or a weight, on your shoulder helps you be a more impartial judge you have zero understanding of how the judicial branch is supposed to work.
 
The silenced majority said:
If it prevents the US legal system from being totally immersed in Marxist class & race warfare, yes.

Go whitey!
Click to expand...

What evidense is there that Sotomayor would engage in race warfare ? What evidence is there that she is a MARXIST ? IWOULD SAY NONE ON EACH COUNT !!
 
Perhaps judges should put out long bios and folks should get to pick who hears their case based on who is most likely to have had experiences that will be easiest to exploit in ones favor.
 
WillRockwell said:
I think the correct translation is "Let's keep this debate related to the qualifications of the candidate and avoid divisive racial remarks."
Click to expand...

Yeah just as the moon bat left did with Miguel Estrada? The same Estrada who had stronger academic credentials than most people elevated to the Court of Appeals? The Estrada that the ABA judged-without a single dissent-to be well qualified? The Estrada that ALL FOUR LIVING FORMER DEMO ADMINISTRATION SOLICITOR GENERALS ENDORSED FOR THE BENCH


The slimey dems claimed he had no judicial experience. Well kids neither did RUTH BADER GINSBURG when she was made an appellate Judge and nor did THURGOOD MARSHALL when he was elevated to the court.

Later, a memo was produced showing he was BLOCKED for RACIST REASONS-the SLIMEY DEMS didn't want Bush to appoint a HISPANIC to the court and groom Estrada for the supremes.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
What evidense is there that Sotomayor would engage in race warfare ? What evidence is there that she is a MARXIST ? IWOULD SAY NONE ON EACH COUNT !!
Click to expand...

Well she did quote a socialist in her college yearbook. Odd choice if you're not a socialist.
 
talloulou said:
No I'm upset about how she talks about it. And how she completely misses the point which should be that in the eyes of the law we are all equal and a female judge or a latino judge is as equally capable of handing down rulings. Justice is color blind. I expect her to tell those kids that she is proud of where she came from and how she got where she is now because it shows that skin color matters less, that having a vagina matters less.

What she did instead was the opposite. She told those kids skin color is everything, being latino will be paramount to what she brings to the bench, etc.

Rather than be a model of someone who has overcome racism and gender stereotypes she has chosen to be an anchor for keeping the two alive for as long as she lives and breathes. She gets no kudos.
Click to expand...

Let me quote from her lecture. In fact, let me quote the paragraph immediately following the one that is so controversial:

Sonia Sotomayer said:
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
Click to expand...

She is throwing out a lot of questions, and questioning the answers. She gives statistics that women and minorities do rule differently than white males, then questions the idea that white men cannot rule in favor of civil rights, and gives proof they can. I do not agree with everything she said, but after reading her speech, I am actually less worried about it. You might remember that on a couple occasions I have refused to defend her comment, because I was not comfortable with it. I still am not going to, but I find it less disturbing now.
 
Redress said:
I also took the comment from the white house to be to tone down the rhetoric on racism, not that race could not be discussed. I admit to partisanship, and may be seeing what I want to...but I don't think that is the case this time.
Click to expand...

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?

Redress said:
I think this is a misrepresentation. I don't think any one is saying she is a good choice because she is a latino female, but that being a latino female is a bonus to a qualified candidate in this case.
Click to expand...

Redress said:
I dunno. If she is qualified, her gender/race is irrelevant. If she is not, her gender/race are irrelevant.

if there are 10 qualified candidates all equal, and diversity is a goal, then promoting the one who best increases diversity is fine, but she is still qualified.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
Do you even understand what impartial means? You need to leave your own past experiences, biases, prejudices, sympathies, apathies, etc at the door. You need to check them when you put that robe on and if you can not you're in the wrong field. If you think bringing them like a chip, or a weight, on your shoulder helps you be a more impartial judge you have zero understanding of how the judicial branch is supposed to work.
Click to expand...

That is a Utopian wish !! I have the understanding of life, history, experience, philosophy and logic so I know that some or maybe none of the justices in the past or those in the Supremes presently have ALWAYS left their "own past experiences, biases, prejudices, sympathies, apathies, etc at the door.".

I know this because IF THAT was even a ghost of a chance true we would never have any split decisions. We would never have any minority opinions.
I what you say was true we would not need 7 or 9 Judges on a bench but only one because he would render every opinion in the pure spirit of impartiality !!!
 
Redress said:
Let me quote from her lecture. In fact, let me quote the paragraph immediately following the one that is so controversial:



She is throwing out a lot of questions, and questioning the answers. She gives statistics that women and minorities do rule differently than white males, then questions the idea that white men cannot rule in favor of civil rights, and gives proof they can. I do not agree with everything she said, but after reading her speech, I am actually less worried about it. You might remember that on a couple occasions I have refused to defend her comment, because I was not comfortable with it. I still am not going to, but I find it less disturbing now.
Click to expand...

What about this quote:

Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
Click to expand...

I take real issue with that. Personal experiences are not supposed to affect the facts that judges choose to see. Where I call from we call that baggage and it doesn't wear well on a judge.

She seems to say throughout the entire thing that absolutely being a woman and a latino will effect her judging. She has two reactions to this. The one is pride- it will make her better. Another is blase- who cares? Never does she stop to question whether it will make her worse, whether it will render her incapable of being impartial, or whether or not this is a dangerous thing. Not once. I find that horrifying for a woman who will inevitably sit on our Supreme Court.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
That is a Utopian wish !! I have the understanding of life, history, experience, philosophy and logic so I know that some or maybe none of the justices in the past or those in the Supremes presently have ALWAYS left their "own past experiences, biases, prejudices, sympathies, apathies, etc at the door.".

I know this because IF THAT was even a ghost of a chance true we would never have any split decisions. We would never have any minority opinions.
I what you say was true we would not need 7 or 9 Judges on a bench but only one because he would render every opinion in the pure spirit of impartiality !!!
Click to expand...

Utopian wishes should be fought for.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah like lets say there was a qualification test you had to pass before becoming a supreme court nominee. Let's say Obama really wanted some Latino female nominees but only pesky white dudes and one black man passed said test. According to Ms. Sonia it's perfectly acceptable to just toss those test results in the garbage, declare the test b.s., and try to come up with a new way of testing nominees until you get the desired skin color - I mean results.
 
talloulou said:
What about this quote:



I take real issue with that. Personal experiences are not supposed to affect the facts that judges choose to see. Where I call from we call that baggage and it doesn't wear well on a judge.

She seems to say throughout the entire thing that absolutely being a woman and a latino will effect her judging. She has two reactions to this. The one is pride- it will make her better. Another is blase- who cares? Never does she stop to question whether it will make her worse, whether it will render her incapable of being impartial, or whether or not this is a dangerous thing. Not once. I find that horrifying for a woman who will inevitably sit on our Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

She actually points out that it is factual that women and minorities do rule differently than white men. Assuming that is the case, who is making the "right" ruling, and how do you determine it? We all are the result of our upbringing, and it does effect how we view things, such as the law, as the fact that women and minority judges do rule differently suggest. So she is saying that since women rule differently from men, whites different from latino from black, it is of value to society to have judges with different backgrounds.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
That is a Utopian wish !! I have the understanding of life, history, experience, philosophy and logic so I know that some or maybe none of the justices in the past or those in the Supremes presently have ALWAYS left their "own past experiences, biases, prejudices, sympathies, apathies, etc at the door.".

I know this because IF THAT was even a ghost of a chance true we would never have any split decisions. We would never have any minority opinions.
I what you say was true we would not need 7 or 9 Judges on a bench but only one because he would render every opinion in the pure spirit of impartiality !!!
Click to expand...

Impartiality is the goal. You're probably right that they don't ALWAYS leave their baggage and experience at the door. And that's why we need more than one. It's also why diversity is probably a good thing. So if a Latino woman has some baggage the others who are NOT Latino women will balance out her baggage/experience issues.

But to walk into court and slap your baggage/experience down on the table and beam with pride because Obama picked you whilst looking for someone who was gonna rule from the heart is totally missing the point of our judicial branch. Your personal anecdotes do not make you a better judge. There are many judges on the Supreme Court to see that no single persons personal crap gets in the way of solid rulings. It is not a plus. It is a handicap.
 
Redress said:
She actually points out that it is factual that women and minorities do rule differently than white men. Assuming that is the case, who is making the "right" ruling, and how do you determine it? We all are the result of our upbringing, and it does effect how we view things, such as the law, as the fact that women and minority judges do rule differently suggest. So she is saying that since women rule differently from men, whites different from latino from black, it is of value to society to have judges with different backgrounds.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
She actually points out that it is factual that women and minorities do rule differently than white men. Assuming that is the case, who is making the "right" ruling, and how do you determine it? We all are the result of our upbringing, and it does effect how we view things, such as the law, as the fact that women and minority judges do rule differently suggest. So she is saying that since women rule differently from men, whites different from latino from black, it is of value to society to have judges with different backgrounds.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom