• 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!

Obama to pick Sotomayer for Supreme Court

Harry Guerrilla said:
A lot of times the Supreme Court pick acts one way till after they get confirmed and then their true colors show.

I'm not comfortable with this person because she has shown that she favors affirmative action policies which are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Yes. It's also worrisome that she thinks her ethnicity makes her a better judge or that her life experiences matter in any way when it comes to deciding the constitutionality of a law.
 
tlmorg02 said:
No, I prefer scholarly, unprejudiced information. Not one-sided info from a angry partisan. Subscribing to such on either side is true ignorance. Listening to those who always agree with your position is not real info.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as unprejudiced information.
 
danarhea said:
What disturbs me about the pick are the following:

1) The New Haven Case - Ironically, she could be hearing the final appeal of a decision that she herself had made.

2) Ordering baseball club owners to settle with the players, in the strike that resulted in no World Series in 1995.

3) Her controversial statement that whether someone before her court was a man or a woman, or the race of someone before her court, would be factors in her rulings.


Sum it all up, and Sotomayor is an activist judge with an activist agenda. I support a Republican filibuster on this nominee.

Here is her bio, and for those who value the Constitution, it is not pretty.
Click to expand...

Your post deserves to be seen.

Bump.
 
bhkad said:
I thought about your comment some more and realized that you ARE being told how to think, but by the 'drive-by media'.
Click to expand...

Right! And Rupert Murdoch decides what you get to know.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Right! And Rupert Murdoch decides what you get to know.
Click to expand...

What facts are you choosing to ignore today?

Just the ones Rush announces?

Or those and Rupert's?

Where does your ignorance end?
 
talloulou said:
How am I lacking rationality?
YouTube - Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made

aps, what do you rationally think when you watch this clip?
Click to expand...

Here is an excellent description about how what she said is true and doesn't make her crazy.

The Washington Monthly

The pertinent part:

Sotomayor was explaining the differences between clerking at the District Court level and clerking at the Court of Appeals level. Her point, which is unquestionably true as a descriptive matter, is that judicial decision making at the Court of Appeals level is more about setting policy, whereas judging at the District Court level is a more about deciding individual cases and disputes. And the reason for this is obvious. Decisions at the Court of Appeals level don't just determine the fates of individual litigants; they serve as controlling precedent for all District Court judges within that circuit. Thus any decision by a Court of Appeals becomes the policy of that circuit, at least until it's overruled by the Supreme Court (which is rare).
Click to expand...
 
Laila said:
I was watching BBC and CNN and it says she sort of 'unknown' on her stances on gay marriage and Abortion etc.
So hey, you never know Republicans. She may be appointed and switch. Be optimistic.
Click to expand...

I'm usually pretty optimistic about everything except politics.
I have this annoying ability to be very accurate about it. :(

Laila said:
If it's unconstitutional, why has it not been overturned? Simple question i know but i'm just curious.
Click to expand...

Equal protection under the law is supposed to prevent one group from having advantages over another group. Can be defined by race, gender, etc.

There was a time when AA was necessary because whites generally used to view black people as lesser individuals. We have come a long way from that and the specific issue she ruled on was based on merit.

It happened to be that the top scoring people where all white, nothing inherently wrong with that, thats how the cookie crumbles sometimes.
 
bhkad said:
What facts are you choosing to ignore today?

Just the ones Rush announces?

Or those and Rupert's?

Where does your ignorance end?
Click to expand...

Where does yours? Do you use anyother sources?
 
tlmorg02 said:
No, I prefer scholarly, unprejudiced information. Not one-sided info from a angry partisan. Subscribing to such on either side is true ignorance. Listening to those who always agree with your position is not real info.
Click to expand...

Facts are facts.

Rush announced facts you aren't hearing elsewhere and resist here.

You loooooooove your ignorance. :happy:
 
talloulou said:
Yes. It's also worrisome that she thinks her ethnicity makes her a better judge or that her life experiences matter in any way when it comes to deciding the constitutionality of a law.
Click to expand...

I'm all for ethnic pride and all that jazz but to say that one can make better decisions based solely on their race is retarded.

I wouldn't seriously consider someone who makes such a statement if I were president.
 
I'm not weeding through all of the posts here, but I will add the following. If you're against her because she leans left (so some say, but I have no idea if it's true or not), why is that? The last two nominees (both appointed by Bush) are right leaning. Do you not want a balance or do you think that right is the only way?
 
MrVicchio said:
Benjamin N. Cardozo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Portuguese Jewish decent.

Served 1932-1938, nominated by Hoover.

Facts, they are your friend, Dem talking points? Are not.
Click to expand...

Harry Guerrilla said:
He's considered white because his decedents are from Europe.
Click to expand...

Intransigent Atheist said:
Interesting article in Wikipedia. It seems that in the US there is a conception, or misconception as the case may be, that Hispanic is the same as Latino.
Click to expand...



Just to point out Spaniards and Portuguese consider themselves white, its not just perception. If you call them Hispanic they get pissed.
 
I found this on the Guardian website [It is a left leaning paper] and figured it is worth a read.

Obama's supreme court pick | Dylan Loewe | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
The president recognises that if the Democratic party can turn Hispanic voters into a loyal bloc of supporters, they can continue to expand their margins around the country, even in places as conservative as Texas, driven almost entirely by Hispanic population growth.

Will nominating the first Hispanic justice to the highest court further Obama's courtship of the Hispanic community? It certainly can't hurt, though it's hard to imagine that it alone will do the job. But Obama may stand to gain more, not from corralling a majority of Democrats to vote in favor of Sotomayor, but from inspiring the most virulent elements of the Republican party to oppose her.

The Republican leadership has already indicated that they view the fight over Obama's Supreme Court nominee as a good opportunity to unify their base and that, among those on the short list, they were most eager to go after Sotomayor. But if they follow through, if they do decide to spend the next two and half months waging an impossible fight against a nominee whose confirmation is all but guaranteed, they may cause permanent damage. If the Hispanic community abandons the Republican party altogether, the Republican party can abandon any serious hope of regaining power in American politics for some time to come.
Click to expand...

The Guardian takes the view that this is done on more political reasons to basically cause the republicans to lose the hispanic vote if they draw it out or increase loyalty to democrats
 
Middleground said:
I'm not weeding through all of the posts here, but I will add the following. If you're against her because she leans left (so some say, but I have no idea if it's true or not), why is that? The last two nominees (both appointed by Bush) are right leaning. Do you not want a balance or do you think that right is the only way?
Click to expand...

I prefer a right leaning candidate solely because they generally make better decisions based on what is constitutional.

Our constitution is pretty clear and basic. Not much need to change anything because it is naturally flexible. All decisions should be made towards individual rights and most times against government expansion of power.

Right leaners more often than left leaners do this. Not always but more than left leaners do.
 
aps said:
Here is an excellent description about how what she said is true and doesn't make her crazy.

The Washington Monthly

The pertinent part:
Click to expand...

It's not true. While occasionally setting precedent is inevitable that in no way implies that the court of appeals serves to set policy. She knows that. She understands she shouldn't have said it. She laughs it off but knows it was inexcusable to say on tape. Making excuses for what she said is wrongheaded as she herself knows what she said was a daft admission of her own thought processes.
 
tlmorg02 said:
But there is information that presents both sides rather than hyper-partisan blather.
Click to expand...

How can you stand your own ignorant hypocrisy? Here I am bringing new facts to light and you resist it, yet you stand on a soap box and rail against one-sided coverage of a subject.

:rofl
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm all for ethnic pride and all that jazz but to say that one can make better decisions based solely on their race is retarded.

I wouldn't seriously consider someone who makes such a statement if I were president.
Click to expand...

If a male judge alluded to the notion that he was a better judge for having a penis all hell would break loose.
 
Last edited:
talloulou said:
It's not true. While occasionally setting precedent is inevitable that in no way implies that the court of appeals serves to set policy. She knows that. She understands she shouldn't have said it. She laughs it off but knows it was inexcusable to say on tape. Making excuses for what she said is wrongheaded as she herself knows what she said was a daft admission of her own thought processes.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. I think she understands that her answer needed to be more nuanced. Maybe because I am a lawyer, I understand this better. I dunno. But I am stunned by the number of people who are hysterical about this. I dont' know what laws you all think are so clear that a court never has to really think about how to apply the law to a set of facts.

"She's not wrong," said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. "Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."

As Segal noted, one of the most recent cases heard by the Supreme Court -- itself a court of appeals -- involves the strip search of a 13-year-old who school officials believed was carrying ibuprofen. "There is no clear knowing statement whether officials can be sued for that sort of behavior," he noted. "So when justices come up with a decision on that, they would be making policy."

"Where Policy Is Made": Sotomayor's Court Comment Explained
Click to expand...
 
Middleground said:
I'm not weeding through all of the posts here, but I will add the following. If you're against her because she leans left (so some say, but I have no idea if it's true or not), why is that? The last two nominees (both appointed by Bush) are right leaning. Do you not want a balance or do you think that right is the only way?
Click to expand...

I fully expect a more leftist leaning judge. I even expected a minority and a woman based on knowing how Obama loves to please. I just don't particularly like this woman based on her weak opinion in the firefighter case and her pronouncement that policy making is a matter of course.
 
Laila said:
I found this on the Guardian website [It is a left leaning paper] and figured it is worth a read.

Obama's supreme court pick | Dylan Loewe | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk


The Guardian takes the view that this is done on more political reasons to basically cause the republicans to lose the hispanic vote if they draw it out or increase loyalty to democrats
Click to expand...

I am sure that is a consideration, but it's not the only qualifier...ie, having a hispanic and a female nominee is a plus politically, but only if she can make it through the process. Having a hispanic and a female nominee also helps in terms of having a diverse makeup on the court, which I find to be a positive. Assigning a single motive to this pick is I think oversimplifying.

I am entertained at how, as soon as I saw who the pick was, I knew exactly how our republican and right wing friends where going to react. Hell, they have been telling us for awhile now, laying the groundwork for their complaints. That is about as far is things will go, complaining, as unless something is dug up on her new, she will almost certainly be confirmed.
 
bhkad said:
How can you stand your own ignorant hypocrisy? Here I am bringing new facts to light and you resist it, yet you stand on a soap box and rail against one-sided coverage of a subject.

:rofl
Click to expand...

You bring facts from one who cherry-picks from the whole story. If you brought complete facts then I would not say a word. If it were Keith Oberman, I would rail the same. I have said I do not like some of her record, and thanked you for the other facts you have brought, but Rush does not tell both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom