Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57

Thread: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

  1. #31
    Professor
    WillRockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,950

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    Do you deny that a Latino judge would be more capable of understanding the issues in a case involving Latinos? Because that is what she said, and I don't see anything that needs retracting.

  2. #32
    Tart with a Heart
    StandUpChuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    07-29-11 @ 01:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,188

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    Quote Originally Posted by WillRockwell View Post
    Do you deny that a Latino judge would be more capable of understanding the issues in a case involving Latinos? Because that is what she said, and I don't see anything that needs retracting.
    Why does she have to be intimate with issues surrounding Latinos? Shouldn't she simply be hearing the facts of each case?
    Quote Originally Posted by soccerboy22 View Post
    You guys are weird.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    I'm a white woman. And yet, I work with the problems of predominantly black and Latino inner city areas.

    I'm not going to say that I can't understand those problems, because I can, and do. But, I will say that I will NEVER, no matter how long I live, understand them in the way that someone who grew up black and latino, in an area like that, understands them.

    Sotomayor is a counter-balance that is, at present, non-existent. The court is predominantly made up of white men and women. The primary political entities of this country, at every significant level, are made up of mostly white men and women. Were all things equal, I'd say that her comments were racist.

    But they aren't. She represents a perspective that we haven't, and don't, have on the court. She represents experieces and perspectives that no one presently on the court will be able to speak to as well as she can.

    And, I don't say that because I think she'll be more liberal. In point of fact, latinos in this country tend to be largely socially CONSERVATIVE. I've never seen any judges, for instance, that are tougher on crime than some of the Latino judges I've met who serve on the bench. Because these judges haven't just prosected crime, or defended criminals, they've usually LIVED what it's like to be trapped in a neighborhood where violent crime is chronic. Some of them still do.

    This is a self-made woman from immigrant roots who pulled herself up by her bootstraps. How much more conservative can you get than that?

    One thing that I like about America is that we had a tendency to see dissent as valuable. The more eyes we have looking at a problem, the greater the odds of finding a workable solution. It's harder, at times, and more complicated, to have more people involved. But, in the long run, it makes us stronger. And that's what she is going to bring to the Supreme COurt...new eyes.

    The law is fluid. It's ever changing. It's constantly being revised and reinterpreted. Diversity, in that setting, is a STRENGTH.
    Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 05-29-09 at 11:01 AM.

  4. #34
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    Tactically, she probably should retract it. However, morally, she has done very little wrong here.
    Morally, she has done very little right. You are in error here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    It is pure idiocy to put 'white man' in where 'latina woman' is, and think that proves anything except make the statement unfathomable. Do you think she might have possibly, just possibly, meant something totally obvious: that the experience of being oppressed due to membership in two of the oppressed groups in our society could have made her wiser? You and every one else bent on creating a tempest in a teapot are busy ignoring this obvious non-racist meaning, even though you know it to be true.
    The pure idiocy is arguing that her membership in two allegedly "oppressed" groups is a valid foundation for interpreting the law.

    Have her experiences imbued her with a certain "wisdom"? Perhaps. Can't say--don't know her personally. Do those experiences have judicial standing and are those experiences a basis for interpreting the law? Not even in the slightest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    In short, the obvious meaning of what she said is: "I am wiser because I have experienced racism directed at me. I am wiser because I have experienced chauvinism directed at me." I cannot express how incredibly and plainly stupid it is to be convinced that she is somehow racist. What would not be stupid would be to pretend that you believed she is racist in order to attempt to hurt her politically.
    She might have said that, and I might have agreed with her. Unfortunately for your (losing) argument, she did not say that, nor did she say anything remotely like that.

    She said a Latina could make a better decision than a white man. Does not matter by what "experience" she comes to that conclusion--that assertion is unmistakably racist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    So, are ya' stupid or just playing games?
    The only game playing is by the liberal lunatic left that pretends that identity politics is somehow an equal application of the law--which is stupidity squared.

  5. #35
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    This is a self-made woman from immigrant roots who pulled herself up by her bootstraps. How much more conservative can you get than that?
    Ummm....that's neither conservative nor liberal. She's got a remarkable life story, no doubt. "Remarkable life story" is not part of the bar exam, nor is it part of adjudicating the law.

  6. #36
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    The law is fluid. It's ever changing. It's constantly being revised and reinterpreted. Diversity, in that setting, is a STRENGTH.
    Laws do change....in the legislatures which pass them.

    In the courtroom, laws are etched in stone. A fluid standard of justice is merely another term for injustice.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Ummm....that's neither conservative nor liberal. She's got a remarkable life story, no doubt. "Remarkable life story" is not part of the bar exam, nor is it part of adjudicating the law.
    No, but every person brings something to the practice of law. She is bringing quite a lot.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Laws do change....in the legislatures which pass them.

    In the courtroom, laws are etched in stone. A fluid standard of justice is merely another term for injustice.
    Wrong. Laws are as often revised by judicial findings as by legislative action. It is the job of the courts to interpret laws in lights of our foundational principles and previous court findings, to ensure that legislative actions don't take us too far from our founding documents.

    For instance, consider laws which are overturned in court because they are found to be unconstitutional...that IS, in fact, the role of the court, to serve as a check/balance on legislative action.

    We are not a pure democracy, we are a republic.

  9. #39
    User York_Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    The Heartland
    Last Seen
    06-26-09 @ 09:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    56

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    I'm surprised that the GOP isn't more supportive of her. She will have "empathy" for others, much like George H.W. Bush saying that Clarence Thomas has "empathy" on the court. In regards to the court being a "policy making" body, she is joined in agreement by both Scalia and Alito.

    In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed.
    -Justice Scalia

    She also shares a similar record when it comes to having cases overturned in regards to the records of Alito and Souter.

  10. #40
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
    stevenb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, Az
    Last Seen
    11-28-09 @ 08:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,560

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    Quote Originally Posted by F107HyperSabr View Post
    They will find something, anything to attack her on. Some blowhard blogger is upset by the way she pronounces her own name. I would agree with you if the cesspool crowd is still splitting swill in a few more days issue some statement about her miss-talkinating or some Bushlike excuse and let it go.
    Quote Originally Posted by From an article about Sotomayor
    Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.
    She's obviously not very keen on the constitution.
    George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 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
  •