• 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'

Same crap the Obama crowd used to defend Obama's stupid policies.

"Don't you dare question our messiahs precious plans or you're a racists"


Stop playing their game.

From what I have read and seen this lady is not worthy of being on the Supreme Court. Her racial views are racist. Her policy views are activist.
Her embracing of Obamanism just makes it all worse.
 
Redress said:
Any excuse that starts with "well, they did it so we should be able to too" is weak.
Click to expand...

What excuse, I was asking a question; should Republicans use the same tactics their partisan political opponents used? Yes or no; is answering a SIMPLE question that hard for you?
 
celticlord said:
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.
Click to expand...

Causation or correlation amounts to the same thing here. The thing is that different judges rule differently based on at least gender. Whether gender is the cause or not is not the question.

Going back to her statement, it only states that "women ...have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims", which makes no claim as to causation or correlation, only that there is pattern.
 
Since Latino's are not a race how can this be an issue of racism ?
These are the races that the US Census bureau recognizes.


White;
• Black or African American;
• American Indian or Alaska Native;
• Asian; and
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Latino is an ethnicity not a race!!

Both sides of this arguement are out of line calling this a rcae issue.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
Since Latino's are not a race how can this be an issue of racism ?
These are the races that the US Census bureau recognizes.


White;
• Black or African American;
• American Indian or Alaska Native;
• Asian; and
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Latino is an ethnicity not a race!!

Both sides of this arguement are out of line calling this a rcae issue.
Click to expand...

Is white a race? Did she not denigrate white men by saying that they are not capable of coming to decisions as good as someone else?

Then it's a race issue.
 
jallman said:
Is white a race? Did she not denigrate white men by saying that they are not capable of coming to decisions as good as someone else?

Then it's a race issue.
Click to expand...

You need to go read the speech. She speaks highly of the white men who where on the Supreme Court, among others.
 
Redress said:
You need to go read the speech. She speaks highly of the white men who where on the Supreme Court, among others.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, it's between a latina and a white man...
 
Redress said:
Again, not what she was saying. Read the speech.
Click to expand...

Please don't repeatedly ask me to do what I have already done.

And yeah, it is exactly what she said, whether she meant to say it or not.
 
jallman said:
Please don't repeatedly ask me to do what I have already done.

And yeah, it is exactly what she said, whether she meant to say it or not.
Click to expand...

I am having a hard time seeing how you can walk away with that impression if you read the whole thing. She is clearly talking about different groups ruling differently, and in regards to civil rights cases, her life experience in that realm gives her more insight than a white man would have. She then immediately refers to how it was a court of white men who decided Brown vs Board of Education, calling into question the premise of the oft quoted soundbite, and saying explicitly that white men can rule, and rule wisely, on civil rights issues.
 
This is really much ado about nothing....but I'm loving the fact that the GOP continues to dig their grave deeper and deeper....

The statement was made in the context of the historical nature of the court dealing with GENDER discrimination. If ANYTHING it was a sexist comment more than a racial one.

What she was saying was that the Court had never ruled in favor of a woman in a gender discrimination case and was stating that this is why diversity on the court is important, because being a latina women she would have a better perspective of what it going on in that context than a white male....and you know what....she is absolutely right which is again exactly WHY diversity is important.

However...I would love the right-wing to derail this nomination.....I'm fine with her...but I would love to see a true liberal nominated. Unlikely....but we can all hope.
 
disneydude said:
This is really much ado about nothing....but I'm loving the fact that the GOP continues to dig their grave deeper and deeper....

The statement was made in the context of the historical nature of the court dealing with GENDER discrimination. If ANYTHING it was a sexist comment more than a racial one.

What she was saying was that the Court had never ruled in favor of a woman in a gender discrimination case and was stating that this is why diversity on the court is important, because being a latina women she would have a better perspective of what it going on in that context than a white male....and you know what....she is absolutely right which is again exactly WHY diversity is important.

However...I would love the right-wing to derail this nomination.....I'm fine with her...but I would love to see a true liberal nominated. Unlikely....but we can all hope.
Click to expand...

Unless something we don't know about comes out before the confirmation hearing, she is going to be confirmed. Notice how no senate republican is taking any serious shots at her. Rush, Newt, Coltier, Tancredo, but not much in the way of senate republicans. This is mostly loud noise and trying to score a few political points.
 
Redress said:
Unless something we don't know about comes out before the confirmation hearing, she is going to be confirmed. Notice how no senate republican is taking any serious shots at her. Rush, Newt, Coltier, Tancredo, but not much in the way of senate republicans. This is mostly loud noise and trying to score a few political points.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, the GOP continues to be their own worst enemy. You talk about attempting to "score points"....they are doing just the opposite.

You talk about no senate republicans taking any serious shots at her....its because they are powerless these days. The leaders of the GOP today are Limbaugh and his crew...and the more talking they do, the better it is for us.
I hope they continue to snowball this....I really do.
 
jallman said:
Of course it is. How could anyone ever dare to question Obamessiah's pick for the highest court of the land. :roll:
Click to expand...

Question her all that you like. I have no issue with that. I just think that this particular "ammunition" is really silly when taken in the context of what was said.

Like I said....trying to make it a "racist" statement is a real stretch. Its much more of a sexist one because she is really saying that women are in a better position of understanding what a female plaintiff in a gender discimination suit might have gone through than men. Its just the GOP playing the race card....that's all.
 
disneydude said:
I agree. However, the GOP continues to be their own worst enemy. You talk about attempting to "score points"....they are doing just the opposite.

You talk about no senate republicans taking any serious shots at her....its because they are powerless these days. The leaders of the GOP today are Limbaugh and his crew...and the more talking they do, the better it is for us.
I hope they continue to snowball this....I really do.
Click to expand...

I think that Rush and Tancredo are hurting republicans in this. Rush saying today that to get promoted in the Obama administration you have to hate white people, that can only hurt republicans.

There are people, some of them republican, who really think she is a bad nominee. I disagree, and am mystified as to their reason, it makes no sense to me, but I can at least respect that, but it's the over the top stuff that is hurting the party. Accusations like the "socialist yearbook quote" do serve to make republicans look foolish.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
I think that Rush and Tancredo are hurting republicans in this. Rush saying today that to get promoted in the Obama administration you have to hate white people, that can only hurt republicans.

There are people, some of them republican, who really think she is a bad nominee. I disagree, and am mystified as to their reason, it makes no sense, but I can at least respect that, but it's the over the top stuff that is hirting the party. Accusations like the "socialist yearbook quote" do serve to make republicans look foolish.
Click to expand...

Look....Rush is right. The GOP is the party of old white men and radical right-wing evangelicals. Rush is simply explaining to everyone else why they do not belong in his party.
 
disneydude said:
Look....Rush is right. The GOP is the party of old white men and radical right-wing evangelicals. Rush is simply explaining to everyone else why they do not belong in his party.
Click to expand...

Except I know some republicans who are neither, and pretty damn good people to boot. I think we have to avoid demonizing the other side. leave that to those we despise.
 
Redress said:
Except I know some republicans who are neither, and pretty damn good people to boot. I think we have to avoid demonizing the other side. leave that to those we despise.
Click to expand...

I just hate everybody.
 
Redress said:
Except I know some republicans who are neither, and pretty damn good people to boot. I think we have to avoid demonizing the other side. leave that to those we despise.
Click to expand...

There are a few....but more and more they are leaving the party too.
 
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...

Dismissed. Bye bye
 
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...

I love love love you when it comes to this topic. ;)
 
If only Alito would have followed the same rules that the right is crying about here.

But he in his own stated words would not as a juror let his ethnicity or upbringing not be a part of his decisions and rulings.

So in this case the Right doesn't have a leg to stand on....again.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom