Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57

Thread: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

  1. #51
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:50 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,268
    Blog Entries
    2

    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.
    Then why in the hell are we talking about one line from a speech she gave on race, in which she talks about, god forbid, her race in a positive light? In fact, it's hilarious that our right wing friends want to talk about anything but her record as a judge.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    White House urged to address 'racist' charge - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

    What caught my eye about this story is that the folks urging Sotomayor to take the comment back are members of Dear Leader's own party. His supposed friends and allies are practically admitting that Sotomayor's comment was fundamentally racist, even in context. There's no closing ranks rallying around Dear Leader or even Sotomayor, which I halfway expected.

    So will Dear Leader follow the advice of others in his own party, or will he ignore everyone and let the story play on?
    What caught my eye about the story is that no one of any relevance urged Sotomayor to do anything.

    What also caught my eye, and what I think is really relevant here is:

    Lehane said the GOP attacks were “probably continuing the long-term self-destruction of the Republican Party.” However, he said allowing talk show hosts, blogs and cable shows to continue to fulminate about Sotomayor’s Berkeley comments was risky.
    You come out with thin talking points, and weak attack positions like Palin did in Oct. - Nov., you end up with egg on your face.

    Sure the Dems have done the same in the past, but rise above it and be the better party. Or just get all dirty in the mud while President Obama easily marks one in the W column.

    Newt used to be so smart, savvy, shrewd... What happened?

  3. #53
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nashville/Little Mexico Tennessee
    Last Seen
    06-02-09 @ 12:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    523

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    Quote Originally Posted by vendur View Post
    Morals? Whose morals? Yours? I'm sure there are many that find racism deplorable.



    Are the all the female suprme court justices ever "idiots"? Both have opined and/or agree that "a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same judgment."



    I didn't know latina women were so horribly "oppressed" in this country. Heh. Is that why so many flood across our borders risking life and limb every day? Hispanics have been advantaged in this country by the racist policies of affirmative action, and she has been further advantaged by being a woman and getting to double dip with affirmative action. What the hell is "oppressive" about that? The only people oppressed de jure in this country are whites, particularly males, (and in some states, like California, asians).



    What you say is even worse, being racist and playing the victim card all in one shot. Thankfully, she has not done that, your ridiculous interpretations of her words notwithstanding.
    I hope you don`t mind, I just logged in to hit the thanks button, and I hit the quote button to get YOUR quote back up in lights.
    Stick around vendur. You just stick around and keep these PC lib-sick racists honest. Can I get you anything, coffee, Tea, more liberal ass to shred?

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    After looking at both sides of the issue (along with some middle lines) I have to say I don't think she is the best choice for the Supreme Court.

    I don't think she meant her comments to come off as racist, however, it is clear she has caused division like it or not as well as some of her judicial decisions are questionable. The honorable thing for her to do is step down as nominee or at worst Obama should withdraw her name as his pick and move on to someone else.

    I don't support her as the nominee.
    I quite agree.

    She isn't suitable in the least.

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    How about this then she was part of the Majority on this highley racist issue

    Perhaps Sotomayor's most controversial decision was in Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she was part of a panel ruling against a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. — they objected after the city threw out the results of a promotion test because too many white firefighters, and not enough minority firefighters, scored high.

    But for me to hell with her racist idea's, her views on the 2nd Adm. is why Mr. Obama need to tell her to remove her name plain and simple if not then he will face a firestorm from the NRA and Gun Owners that made his little commet last year seem like Sunday Backpage news.

  6. #56
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,237

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    It's all irrelevant, the Democrats will vote her in. She could label the supreme court rule by white racists and still get confirmed.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: White House urged to address 'racist' charge

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Key cases reveal few clues - Yahoo! News

    Sotomayor is proving to be an even more fitting replacement for Souter than she first appeared--Souter was himself a stealth nominee when appointed to the Court, and Sotomayor apparently is equally stealthy.

    However, a couple cases do appear to be potential problems for her.

    One is the Ricci v DeStefano reverse discrimination case that she dismissed with a single paragraph summary opinion. That scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month, with a ruling likely to be issued before hearings on her nomination begin.

    The other is the per curiam opinion Maloney v Cuomo issued in January of this year, which disregarded the Supreme Court ruling on the Washington, D.C., handgun ban to apply a much older (1886) ruling on the applicability of the 2nd Amendment to the states. As the 9th Circuit arrived at a different interpretation in Nordyke v King last month, there is a good chance this matter will also find its way to the Supreme Court.

    This article is not much more comprehensive than the Rosen piece I last posted, but it does provide a bit more analysis.
    Sotomayer is a racist. She refused to rule in favor of the plaintiff(s) in reverse discrimination cases... even when it was appropriate to do so.

    She cannot be trusted to make a non-biased decision. This is more than enough reason to exclude her from the SCOTUS.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

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