• 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'

Redress said:
This is what I have been trying to say, but no one believes me.
Click to expand...

No one wants to believe you. Redress, it is just amazing to me to listen to Limbaugh, Gingrich, and other stupid GOPers and re-read what they say on this message board. It's like people don't have the ability to analyze facts--just repeat what others have said. I don't get it. Help me understand.
 
This is on La Raza's homepage...their mission statement and answer to their critics.

A letter to the public.

National Council of La Raza: Viewpoints

Not quite the "racist" group that the "right" is making them out to be.
 
aps said:
Well, considering that I have sat on a "court" and judged, I think I can speak from experience. Thank you very much.

It is stunning to me how many of you people THINK you have an understanding of applying facts to laws and think that there's only one way to interpret the law. If that was the case, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court or the Supreme Court rulings would all be 9-0.
Click to expand...
There is only one way to interpret the law--only one correct way.

That correct way is the way of Marbury v Madison--which examined the case, considered the applicable laws, weighed the statutory laws against the Constitution of the United States, and viewed the case objectively in light of what the law says. That correct way is to state with specificity what the law is, what the law allows, within the confines of the Constitution, and leave the notional questions of moral right and moral wrong to the legislatures.

There is most assuredly one correct manner of interpretation. To argue or pretend otherwise is simply wrong.
 
WillRockwell said:
The special interest groups of the DNC?? Why don't you just say the Illuminati wrote it? This is the big hot button issue of the day, emailed to all rightwing lackeys across the country, and you CAN'T EVEN CITE WHO WROTE IT? I think that is hilarious.
Click to expand...

You should really go back and read my link on page 19 was it? The people who wrote are named, and the Senator it was Sent to is named.

You should really read links before posting.
 
MrVicchio said:
You mean like her racist remarks are now off limits?
Click to expand...

Now hold on there!!! Only conservatives can be racists. Genie Garabuffalo stated so about the tax tea party's saying it was only about whites HATING the black president and so logically anything said about the Cisco Senorita is yet another racist crack from stupid rednecks. Don't forget about how anti-hispanic GWB was.
 
Redress said:
She also says quite clearly, and in fact in the paragraph right after the controversial comment from the speech, that white men are capable of making very wise decisions.
Click to expand...

How generous of her.

Still, she then goes back to the "racism is good" theme:
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. 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...
We "must accept" that ethnicity matters in judicial review? We "must accept" that ethnicity has relevance in the interpretation of the law? We "must accept" that Judge Sotomayor cannot say how her Latina heritage bears on her rulings, but that she gives her own Latina heritage weight alongside the facts of a case?

How can any judge who presents this as a serious question be taken seriously?
For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering?
Click to expand...
The correct answer is NOTHING.
 
celticlord said:
How generous of her.

Still, she then goes back to the "racism is good" theme:
We "must accept" that ethnicity matters in judicial review? We "must accept" that ethnicity has relevance in the interpretation of the law? We "must accept" that Judge Sotomayor cannot say how her Latina heritage bears on her rulings, but that she gives her own Latina heritage weight alongside the facts of a case?

How can any judge who presents this as a serious question be taken seriously?
The correct answer is NOTHING.
Click to expand...

and you fail to mention she said all this at a seminar about minorities in the legal profession, which she was invited to attend. Instead of pretending she is fixated on her Latin-ness, why can't you admit she was simply addressing the topic of the seminar?
 
Make no mistake by being a racist in support of this wildly racist person. Sotomayor belongs to a subversive group and should be rejected .... Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas belong to Aztlan is the view of the Race which she is a member. Not further look at her is needed. She does fit in with the Obamas's if you just be honest about the racist first lady in her own words. It's time to read Sotomayor's own words and not fall for the argument that her statements are taken out of context brcause there is no context in which they are anything but offensive and or racist depending on which of her outrageous remarks you read or quote.
She needs to be forced to withdraw before it even comes to hearings. And never, never back down in fear of being called a racist but leftists who are threatening us not to tell the truth about this poor excuse for an American or we'll be sorry.
 
celticlord said:
There is only one way to interpret the law--only one correct way.

That correct way is the way of Marbury v Madison--which examined the case, considered the applicable laws, weighed the statutory laws against the Constitution of the United States, and viewed the case objectively in light of what the law says. That correct way is to state with specificity what the law is, what the law allows, within the confines of the Constitution, and leave the notional questions of moral right and moral wrong to the legislatures.

There is most assuredly one correct manner of interpretation. To argue or pretend otherwise is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

Then why do we need a court system with multiple levels of appeals? If every judge interprets the law the same, why is it so rare that SCOTUS rules 9-0? You are not even close to being intellectually honest here.
 
celticlord said:
How generous of her.

Still, she then goes back to the "racism is good" theme:
We "must accept" that ethnicity matters in judicial review? We "must accept" that ethnicity has relevance in the interpretation of the law? We "must accept" that Judge Sotomayor cannot say how her Latina heritage bears on her rulings, but that she gives her own Latina heritage weight alongside the facts of a case?

How can any judge who presents this as a serious question be taken seriously?
The correct answer is NOTHING.
Click to expand...

If her claim that people of different ethnicities, and different sexes are documented as ruling somewhat differently, then yes, we do have to accept that ethnicity affects rulings. We can deny facts all day long, but it does not make them less true.
 
Councilman said:
Make no mistake by being a racist in support of this wildly racist person. Sotomayor belongs to a subversive group and should be rejected .... Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas belong to Aztlan is the view of the Race which she is a member. Not further look at her is needed. She does fit in with the Obamas's if you just be honest about the racist first lady in her own words. It's time to read Sotomayor's own words and not fall for the argument that her statements are taken out of context brcause there is no context in which they are anything but offensive and or racist depending on which of her outrageous remarks you read or quote.
She needs to be forced to withdraw before it even comes to hearings. And never, never back down in fear of being called a racist but leftists who are threatening us not to tell the truth about this poor excuse for an American or we'll be sorry.
Click to expand...

Please go back one page where that is all debunked. In fact, it is debunked by 2 liberals and a conservative who looked into it together this morning.
 
Councilman said:
Make no mistake by being a racist in support of this wildly racist person. Sotomayor belongs to a subversive group and should be rejected .... Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas belong to Aztlan is the view of the Race which she is a member. Not further look at her is needed. She does fit in with the Obamas's if you just be honest about the racist first lady in her own words. It's time to read Sotomayor's own words and not fall for the argument that her statements are taken out of context brcause there is no context in which they are anything but offensive and or racist depending on which of her outrageous remarks you read or quote.
She needs to be forced to withdraw before it even comes to hearings. And never, never back down in fear of being called a racist but leftists who are threatening us not to tell the truth about this poor excuse for an American or we'll be sorry.
Click to expand...

What is her race ? I never did see or hear that. anyone know what her race is please let the rest of us know. Thanks
 
Last edited:
You can choose to believe what other say or write or you can watch and listen to her racists remarks coming out of her her own mouth and believe what you hear and see. There is plenty there.
Sotomayor racist remarks - Google Videos

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else".
Sir Winston Churchill
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Then why do we need a court system with multiple levels of appeals? If every judge interprets the law the same, why is it so rare that SCOTUS rules 9-0? You are not even close to being intellectually honest here.
Click to expand...
How wrong you are, let us count the ways....

Lawyers and jurists argue various merits of the law, and dissect the law to ensure that all relevant matters are fairly and thoroughly explored. There are intellectually valid differences in what weights are accorded the various relevant matters, and it is fitting that a multiple of jurists discuss such differences to achieve a balanced result.

The distinction is that the relevant matters are: the facts of the case, the applicable law, and the Constitution. The ethnicity and the gender of the jurist is not nor should ever be a relevant matter in deciding a court case.

Sotomayor argues otherwise, and in that she is categorically wrong; in that, she is fundamentally at odds with over two centuries of American jurisprudence.

Pretending that her stance is anything but a gross jurisprudential error is itself the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. It is the triumph of transitory identity politics over durable standards of judicial review. It is the rationalization of racism. It is nothing less than this. And it is wrong.
 
Councilman said:
You can choose to believe what other say or write or you can watch and listen to her racists remarks coming out of her her own mouth and believe what you hear and see. There is plenty there.
Sotomayor racist remarks - Google Videos

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else".
Sir Winston Churchill
Click to expand...

You memtioned thsi "view of the Race which she is a member" so what is her race ????? I know what her other language besides English is but I never heard or read anywhere what her race was and since you mentioned a race I figured that you know. THANKS in advance for your answer !!
 
celticlord said:
How wrong you are, let us count the ways....

Lawyers and jurists argue various merits of the law, and dissect the law to ensure that all relevant matters are fairly and thoroughly explored. There are intellectually valid differences in what weights are accorded the various relevant matters, and it is fitting that a multiple of jurists discuss such differences to achieve a balanced result.

The distinction is that the relevant matters are: the facts of the case, the applicable law, and the Constitution. The ethnicity and the gender of the jurist is not nor should ever be a relevant matter in deciding a court case.

Sotomayor argues otherwise, and in that she is categorically wrong; in that, she is fundamentally at odds with over two centuries of American jurisprudence.

Pretending that her stance is anything but a gross jurisprudential error is itself the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. It is the triumph of transitory identity politics over durable standards of judicial review. It is the rationalization of racism. It is nothing less than this. And it is wrong.
Click to expand...

That is not quite true. She argues that judges do rule differently, based on ethnicity and gender. That is, on some level, gender and ethnicity effect how a judge rule. We cannot change our upbringing and heritage, it is a part of us, and does effect how we view things. Therefore, since law is subject to interpretation(hence the multiple levels of the court system), and different viewpoints can and are "intellectually valid", she is not saying anything really wrong.
 
Redress said:
If her claim that people of different ethnicities, and different sexes are documented as ruling somewhat differently, then yes, we do have to accept that ethnicity affects rulings. We can deny facts all day long, but it does not make them less true.
Click to expand...
Unless and until you can document conclusive proof that jurists' ethnicity and gender have direct bearing on their rulings, there is no such "fact".

The only "fact" is that different jurists may reach different conclusions about the applicability of the law to the same set of trial facts. There is no "fact" establishing that difference is due to specific variance in either ethnicity or gender of jurists, or that such variance alters a jurist's opinion in specific and predictable ways.

Trot out the studies that establish that "fact" and then you have a claim to make. Until you do, you have nothing to say.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
La Raza means "The Race" and I'm not talking about a 10k.



Lets get our terminology correct in this thread.

This isn't targeted just towards you but everyone who uses it.

There is no such thing as reverse racism.

Someone is either racist or they are not.
Reverse racism would mean that someone is not racist.
Click to expand...

What meaning of RACE ? A foot race, a horse race, a yatch race ? or does it refer to the space race ? Just asking !
 
Councilman said:
You can choose to believe what other say or write or you can watch and listen to her racists remarks coming out of her her own mouth and believe what you hear and see. There is plenty there.
Sotomayor racist remarks - Google Videos

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else".
Sir Winston Churchill
Click to expand...

Funny how almost all our right wing friends(except Talloulou) keep linking just the soundbite. Here is a link to the whole speech, with things like, you know, context:

Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’

The following is the text of the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001, delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, by appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor. It was published in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, a symposium issue entitled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation," and it is reproduced here with permission from the journal.
Click to expand...

Note the topic she was supposed to speak on.
 
celticlord said:
Unless and until you can document conclusive proof that jurists' ethnicity and gender have direct bearing on their rulings, there is no such "fact".

The only "fact" is that different jurists may reach different conclusions about the applicability of the law to the same set of trial facts. There is no "fact" establishing that difference is due to specific variance in either ethnicity or gender of jurists, or that such variance alters a jurist's opinion in specific and predictable ways.

Trot out the studies that establish that "fact" and then you have a claim to make. Until you do, you have nothing to say.
Click to expand...

I took that from Sotomayers speech actually. Here is the text I was referencing:

The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=4&_r=2

Google is being a pain in the ass in finding the actual articles or another reference to them. It is just returning Sotomayers words every time....

You got access to Lexis and can check it for me by chance?
 
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...

Really? So should we use the examples set by Democrats when they slandered and mischaracterized in the arena of public opinion the likes of Alito, Thomas, Meirs and Bork with their asinine assertions; or are you saying let's not act like the Democrats?

Tell me what part of the public trials these good people had to go through with and the asinine treatment they received by Democrats, in one case Alito’s wife leaving the room in tears, do you think had to do with their “qualifications?”

This should be quite a laugh. The hypocrisy of the Liberal Left certainly knows no bounds. :roll:
 
Truth Detector said:
Really? So should we use the examples set by Democrats when they slandered and mischaracterized in the arena of public opinion the likes of Alito, Thomas, Meirs and Bork with their asinine assertions; or are you saying let's not act like the Democrats?

Tell me what part of the public trials these good people had to go through with and the asinine treatment they received by Democrats, in one case Alito’s wife leaving the room in tears, do you think had to do with their “qualifications?”

This should be quite a laugh. The hypocrisy of the Liberal Left certainly knows no bounds. :roll:
Click to expand...

Any excuse that starts with "well, they did it so we should be able to too" is weak.
 
Councilman said:
Make no mistake by being a racist in support of this wildly racist person. Sotomayor belongs to a subversive group and should be rejected .... Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas belong to Aztlan is the view of the Race which she is a member. Not further look at her is needed. She does fit in with the Obamas's if you just be honest about the racist first lady in her own words. It's time to read Sotomayor's own words and not fall for the argument that her statements are taken out of context brcause there is no context in which they are anything but offensive and or racist depending on which of her outrageous remarks you read or quote.
She needs to be forced to withdraw before it even comes to hearings. And never, never back down in fear of being called a racist but leftists who are threatening us not to tell the truth about this poor excuse for an American or we'll be sorry.
Click to expand...

Please provide a link that proves those willy nilly claims?
 
Redress said:
That is not quite true. She argues that judges do rule differently, based on ethnicity and gender. That is, on some level, gender and ethnicity effect how a judge rule. We cannot change our upbringing and heritage, it is a part of us, and does effect how we view things. Therefore, since law is subject to interpretation(hence the multiple levels of the court system), and different viewpoints can and are "intellectually valid", she is not saying anything really wrong.
Click to expand...
Judges rule differently. There is no dispute over that.

That gender and ethnicity are specific and quantifiable factors in their rulings, as Sotomayor suggests, is unsupported and unsupportable. Further, even if it could be supported, the proper use of such factoids is to incorporate into legal education the quantified impact of gender and ethnicity, to ensure that such irrelevancies are eradicated from jurisprudence.

Further, asserting gender and ethnicity as the determining personal characteristics makes no accommodation for any other personal characteristics. Consider: is Sotomayor's outlook predicated more on her gender and Latina heritage, or on her rather impoverished childhood in the South Bronx? If the latter, does that not mean her conclusion about ethnicity and gender on the bench is in error?
 
Redress said:
You got access to Lexis and can check it for me by chance?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, no I don't. However, if the studies are the ones I am thinking of, my recollection is they show correlation, not causation. Sotomayor is asserting causation. Not the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom