• 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

Re: Conservative groups criticize Sotomayor pick

Harry Guerrilla said:
Please stfu, you have no idea what your talking about.

I'd imagine that we in the south have better racial relations than you in the north do solely because we have lived so close together for so long.
Click to expand...
Did I say the South? Are you suggesting that the only place that the GOP has any strength is the South? Interesting admission.

If you're suggesting that since the Dred Scott decision that the South has been the best place for Blacks to live then I would suggest that I disagree....

As for today if Blacks in the South are treated so much better than they are elsewhere and if the South is the last remaining GOP stronghold how come there aren't ANY Southern Black Republicans in office or even running for office in a national election?
 
Re: Conservative groups criticize Sotomayor pick

Family Guy said:
Did I say the South? Are you suggesting that the only place that the GOP has any strength is the South? Interesting admission.

If you're suggesting that since the Dred Scott decision that the South has been the best place for Blacks to live then I would suggest that I disagree....

As for today if Blacks in the South are treated so much better than they are elsewhere and if the South is the last remaining GOP stronghold how come there aren't ANY Southern Black Republicans in office or even running for office in a national election?
Click to expand...




:lol: what the hell are you on about? What does any of this have to do with Obama appointing a bigot to the bench? :lol:
 
Redress said:
I am not sure if reasonable, well thought out posts like this one should be allowed in an emotional debate like people are having on this nomination.
Click to expand...

Redress, if you check out the cases they discuss in that link, anytime the Supreme Court reversed, it was a very close decision. I would be concerned if the Supreme Court was reversing ALL of her decisions, but even then, it's not just her name attached to the decision being appealed. WTH?

Thank you for the compliment. I am completely shocked at how Rush can dictate how others feel about this woman's nomination. :shock:
 
aps said:
And should be. The Supreme Court should represent more than just white men and one woman. To me, it should represent the United States as a whole.
.
Click to expand...

So I am to assume you supported Bush's nomination of Harriet Myers, based on this crucial criteria of yours?
 
WI Crippler said:
So I am to assume you supported Bush's nomination of Harriet Myers, based on this crucial criteria of yours?
Click to expand...

Harriet Myers was a joke. I support a nomination of a woman who is incredibly, exceedlingly bright. Myers is not incredibly or exceedingly bright in my book. In fact, I would guess that I am smarter than her, and I don't deserve to be on the Supreme Court.
 
aps said:
Redress, if you check out the cases they discuss in that link, anytime the Supreme Court reversed, it was a very close decision. I would be concerned if the Supreme Court was reversing ALL of her decisions, but even then, it's not just her name attached to the decision being appealed. WTH?

Thank you for the compliment. I am completely shocked at how Rush can dictate how others feel about this woman's nomination. :shock:
Click to expand...

This has been set up for awhile. The republicans where out there, setting out the talking points they where going to use against any nominee. By publicly listing what they felt a nominee should not be, they then had the ammo to pick and choose to smear any nominee with. This is not Rush alone, he is just part of the plan. They know they cannot stop the nomination, so they are just trying to score political points.
 
Re: Conservative groups criticize Sotomayor pick

Family Guy said:
Did I say the South? Are you suggesting that the only place that the GOP has any strength is the South? Interesting admission.

If you're suggesting that since the Dred Scott decision that the South has been the best place for Blacks to live then I would suggest that I disagree....

As for today if Blacks in the South are treated so much better than they are elsewhere and if the South is the last remaining GOP stronghold how come there aren't ANY Southern Black Republicans in office or even running for office in a national election?
Click to expand...

I know what you said and what you were implying.

In the past the south was not a great place for blacks but today it is totally different. I'm pretty sure you are one of those New England bigots who denigrates anything that emerges from the south. I've met your kind before and I am happy to show you how wrong you are.

I don't care which political party blacks are involved in but I will tell you that black culture is mostly responsible for their failings today and not the white man.

Herman Cain, owned.
 
aps said:
Harriet Myers was a joke. I support a nomination of a woman who is incredibly, exceedlingly bright. Myers is not incredibly or exceedingly bright in my book. In fact, I would guess that I am smarter than her, and I don't deserve to be on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Sotomayer is not incredibly bright. I think they could have found a more leftist appointee who was incredibly bright, but she's just not.
 
talloulou said:
Sotomayer is not incredibly bright. I think they could have found a more leftist appointee who was incredibly bright, but she's just not.
Click to expand...





This is what happens when you go looking for a hispanic woman, instead of the most qualifed applicant.
 
aps said:
Harriet Myers was a joke. I support a nomination of a woman who is incredibly, exceedlingly bright. Myers is not incredibly or exceedingly bright in my book. In fact, I would guess that I am smarter than her, and I don't deserve to be on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't your criteria be based soley on intelligence, and not superficial physical attributes? Thats how I roll.
 
talloulou said:
Sotomayer is not incredibly bright. I think they could have found a more leftist appointee who was incredibly bright, but she's just not.
Click to expand...

And you know this how? I'm sure she got into Princeton and Yale Law School and made it on Yale's Law Review because she's an idiot. I'm sure of that, talloulou. :roll:
 
WI Crippler said:
Shouldn't your criteria be based soley on intelligence, and not superficial physical attributes? Thats how I roll.
Click to expand...

But why can't I want a woman who is intelligent?
 
aps said:
But why can't I want a woman who is intelligent?
Click to expand...

You can. But you'd be nuanced about it. Saying for example, "A balanced court is a stronger court, " or some such thing rather than suggesting your vagina makes you a better judge than some white prick. :2razz:
 
talloulou said:
You can. But you'd be nuanced about it. Saying for example, "A balanced court is a stronger court, " or some such thing rather than suggesting your vagina makes you a better judge than some white prick. :2razz:
Click to expand...

LOL That's what I said initially.
 
aps said:
But why can't I want a woman who is intelligent?
Click to expand...

You can, as long as you aren't willing to turn down a better qualified candidate, based on gender. Is there a better qualified candidate than this lady? I don't know. I know that the pool from which Obama is going to choose is going to be centrist to left of center. So we can disqualify any intelligent right of center judges based on that criteria. So now the question is, is she the best candidate from the left of center pool? That I don't know. If there is a better suited candidate, I think its shameful to pick someone due to physical attributes. If all else can be shown to be equal, as in he couldn't have done any better from the pool he's going to pick from, then I have no issue. Obama may be messianic, but I don't expect him to perform any miracles for the right anytime soon.
 
Yeah, seriously....what's the equation for this?

How many bonus points do you get for being a woman? Being a minority? Having came from poverty in the past?

I mean, what's the point total here. Is there some kind of magical equation that comes together that says "Well, in all things actually dealing with the law this other person [x] is better than this person [y], but Y is a asian female that grew up in the slums so that gives her 10 points extra credit and the win"
 
Zyphlin said:
Where in the world does that fit into judging.

What happen to this notion that Justice is Blind?

The Consequences of their judgement based on the racial and economic status? What? So a white above average income male and a relatively poor hispanic woman get arrested for the exact same crime and somehow the judgements and consequences should be different not on ANY legal fact but simply because of their race, financial standing, and sex?

This is law to you?
Click to expand...

I did not say that was my view, only what she was getting at.
 
WI Crippler said:
You can, as long as you aren't willing to turn down a better qualified candidate, based on gender. Is there a better qualified candidate than this lady? I don't know. I know that the pool from which Obama is going to choose is going to be centrist to left of center. So we can disqualify any intelligent right of center judges based on that criteria. So now the question is, is she the best candidate from the left of center pool? That I don't know. If there is a better suited candidate, I think its shameful to pick someone due to physical attributes. If all else can be shown to be equal, as in he couldn't have done any better from the pool he's going to pick from, then I have no issue. Obama may be messianic, but I don't expect him to perform any miracles for the right anytime soon.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but what constitutes a better qualified candidate? One whose decisions you like better? As President, Obama has the right choose someone whom he thinks is qualified. I could see you doubting her if she went to some podunk college and law school. Her education meets the criteria of the usual Supreme Court justice. The chances of someone going to both schools and not being very bright are incredibly slim.

I might be concerned if I was reading through her opinions and I thought, "Jeez, she's dumb!" Just remember that judges on the Circuit courts are part of a panel of judges. So the decision that comes down isn't her decision. It's their decision. Based on what I have looked at so far, I haven't seen anything that makes me think, "You have got to be kidding me." As I stated above, if the Supreme Court was issuing decisions with 9-0, 8-1 votes, reversing the decision of the Second Circuit where she voted with the majority, I might be concerned.

Obama is smart enough to pick someone who is incredibly bright and talented. Let's see how the Senate votes on her. In 1998 (when it was Republican controlled), she got 67 votes for the Second Circuit.
 
aps said:
I see your point, but what constitutes a better qualified candidate? One whose decisions you like better? As President, Obama has the right choose someone whom he thinks is qualified. I could see you doubting her if she went to some podunk college and law school. Her education meets the criteria of the usual Supreme Court justice. The chances of someone going to both schools and not being very bright are incredibly slim.

I might be concerned if I was reading through her opinions and I thought, "Jeez, she's dumb!" Just remember that judges on the Circuit courts are part of a panel of judges. So the decision that comes down isn't her decision. It's their decision. Based on what I have looked at so far, I haven't seen anything that makes me think, "You have got to be kidding me." As I stated above, if the Supreme Court was issuing decisions with 9-0, 8-1 votes, reversing the decision of the Second Circuit where she voted with the majority, I might be concerned.

Obama is smart enough to pick someone who is incredibly bright and talented. Let's see how the Senate votes on her. In 1998 (when it was Republican controlled), she got 67 votes for the Second Circuit.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Senate will vote her in. There doesn't seem to be any gross miscalculation in regards to her qualifications. I'm just a little offended by the notion there is this need to have a minority on the bench, just because we need to have a minority on the bench. As if a ruling coming down from a female or hispanic lends more credibility to the decision than if it came down from a male WASP.
 
talloulou said:
Sotomayer is not incredibly bright. I think they could have found a more leftist appointee who was incredibly bright, but she's just not.
Click to expand...

On what do you base this opinion?
 
Never mind, comment unfair in this case. I retract it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom