• 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!

White House urged to address 'racist' charge

LOL. This is the like the musings of the stereotypical leftwing bots.

Don't make me think about anything, just spoonfeed me "my thoughts", all mixed in with a couple of strawmen and caricatures.

Is this the garbage the public edjewcashun system pumps out now?

I find myself assigning you, your first and second "Thanks", in DP.
Welcome to DP, and may I introduce you to the most PC, bleeding heart bot, of all the liberals amongst us. Meet Redress. :2wave:
 
Welcome to DP, and may I introduce you to the most PC, bleeding heart bot, of all the liberals amongst us. Meet Redress. :2wave:

If Redress is the best leftist asshat you've got here, that's pretty freaking sad.
 
Newt Gingrich called Sotomayor a racist, and correctly pointed out that, were she white and her hypothetical of wise Latina and white man reversed, she would be pilloried and excoriated as such.

The Anti-Republicans are agreeing with Newt.

How exactly is that a "smear"? When both sides say she needs to retract what she said, that's not a smear, that's a case of Sotomayor foot in Sotomayor mouth.

Tactically, she probably should retract it. However, morally, she has done very little wrong here.

It is pure idiocy to put 'white man' in where 'latina woman' is, and think that proves anything except make the statement unfathomable. Do you think she might have possibly, just possibly, meant something totally obvious: that the experience of being oppressed due to membership in two of the oppressed groups in our society could have made her wiser? You and every one else bent on creating a tempest in a teapot are busy ignoring this obvious non-racist meaning, even though you know it to be true.

In short, the obvious meaning of what she said is: "I am wiser because I have experienced racism directed at me. I am wiser because I have experienced chauvinism directed at me." I cannot express how incredibly and plainly stupid it is to be convinced that she is somehow racist. What would not be stupid would be to pretend that you believed she is racist in order to attempt to hurt her politically.

So, are ya' stupid or just playing games?
 
Do you deny that a Latino judge would be more capable of understanding the issues in a case involving Latinos? Because that is what she said, and I don't see anything that needs retracting.
 
Do you deny that a Latino judge would be more capable of understanding the issues in a case involving Latinos? Because that is what she said, and I don't see anything that needs retracting.

Why does she have to be intimate with issues surrounding Latinos? Shouldn't she simply be hearing the facts of each case?
 
I'm a white woman. And yet, I work with the problems of predominantly black and Latino inner city areas.

I'm not going to say that I can't understand those problems, because I can, and do. But, I will say that I will NEVER, no matter how long I live, understand them in the way that someone who grew up black and latino, in an area like that, understands them.

Sotomayor is a counter-balance that is, at present, non-existent. The court is predominantly made up of white men and women. The primary political entities of this country, at every significant level, are made up of mostly white men and women. Were all things equal, I'd say that her comments were racist.

But they aren't. She represents a perspective that we haven't, and don't, have on the court. She represents experieces and perspectives that no one presently on the court will be able to speak to as well as she can.

And, I don't say that because I think she'll be more liberal. In point of fact, latinos in this country tend to be largely socially CONSERVATIVE. I've never seen any judges, for instance, that are tougher on crime than some of the Latino judges I've met who serve on the bench. Because these judges haven't just prosected crime, or defended criminals, they've usually LIVED what it's like to be trapped in a neighborhood where violent crime is chronic. Some of them still do.

This is a self-made woman from immigrant roots who pulled herself up by her bootstraps. How much more conservative can you get than that?

One thing that I like about America is that we had a tendency to see dissent as valuable. The more eyes we have looking at a problem, the greater the odds of finding a workable solution. It's harder, at times, and more complicated, to have more people involved. But, in the long run, it makes us stronger. And that's what she is going to bring to the Supreme COurt...new eyes.

The law is fluid. It's ever changing. It's constantly being revised and reinterpreted. Diversity, in that setting, is a STRENGTH.
 
Last edited:
Tactically, she probably should retract it. However, morally, she has done very little wrong here.
Morally, she has done very little right. You are in error here.

It is pure idiocy to put 'white man' in where 'latina woman' is, and think that proves anything except make the statement unfathomable. Do you think she might have possibly, just possibly, meant something totally obvious: that the experience of being oppressed due to membership in two of the oppressed groups in our society could have made her wiser? You and every one else bent on creating a tempest in a teapot are busy ignoring this obvious non-racist meaning, even though you know it to be true.
The pure idiocy is arguing that her membership in two allegedly "oppressed" groups is a valid foundation for interpreting the law.

Have her experiences imbued her with a certain "wisdom"? Perhaps. Can't say--don't know her personally. Do those experiences have judicial standing and are those experiences a basis for interpreting the law? Not even in the slightest.

In short, the obvious meaning of what she said is: "I am wiser because I have experienced racism directed at me. I am wiser because I have experienced chauvinism directed at me." I cannot express how incredibly and plainly stupid it is to be convinced that she is somehow racist. What would not be stupid would be to pretend that you believed she is racist in order to attempt to hurt her politically.
She might have said that, and I might have agreed with her. Unfortunately for your (losing) argument, she did not say that, nor did she say anything remotely like that.

She said a Latina could make a better decision than a white man. Does not matter by what "experience" she comes to that conclusion--that assertion is unmistakably racist.

So, are ya' stupid or just playing games?
The only game playing is by the liberal lunatic left that pretends that identity politics is somehow an equal application of the law--which is stupidity squared.
 
This is a self-made woman from immigrant roots who pulled herself up by her bootstraps. How much more conservative can you get than that?
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.
 
The law is fluid. It's ever changing. It's constantly being revised and reinterpreted. Diversity, in that setting, is a STRENGTH.
Laws do change....in the legislatures which pass them.

In the courtroom, laws are etched in stone. A fluid standard of justice is merely another term for injustice.
 
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.

No, but every person brings something to the practice of law. She is bringing quite a lot.
 
Laws do change....in the legislatures which pass them.

In the courtroom, laws are etched in stone. A fluid standard of justice is merely another term for injustice.

Wrong. Laws are as often revised by judicial findings as by legislative action. It is the job of the courts to interpret laws in lights of our foundational principles and previous court findings, to ensure that legislative actions don't take us too far from our founding documents.

For instance, consider laws which are overturned in court because they are found to be unconstitutional...that IS, in fact, the role of the court, to serve as a check/balance on legislative action.

We are not a pure democracy, we are a republic.
 
I'm surprised that the GOP isn't more supportive of her. She will have "empathy" for others, much like George H.W. Bush saying that Clarence Thomas has "empathy" on the court.;) In regards to the court being a "policy making" body, she is joined in agreement by both Scalia and Alito.;)

In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed.
-Justice Scalia

She also shares a similar record when it comes to having cases overturned in regards to the records of Alito and Souter.;)
 
They will find something, anything to attack her on. Some blowhard blogger is upset by the way she pronounces her own name. I would agree with you if the cesspool crowd is still splitting swill in a few more days issue some statement about her miss-talkinating or some Bushlike excuse and let it go.

From an article about Sotomayor said:
Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

She's obviously not very keen on the constitution.
 
Tactically, she probably should retract it. However, morally, she has done very little wrong here.

Morals? Whose morals? Yours? I'm sure there are many that find racism deplorable.

It is pure idiocy to put 'white man' in where 'latina woman' is, and think that proves anything except make the statement unfathomable.

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."

Do you think she might have possibly, just possibly, meant something totally obvious: that the experience of being oppressed due to membership in two of the oppressed groups in our society could have made her wiser? You and every one else bent on creating a tempest in a teapot are busy ignoring this obvious non-racist meaning, even though you know it to be true.

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).

In short, the obvious meaning of what she said is: "I am wiser because I have experienced racism directed at me. I am wiser because I have experienced chauvinism directed at me." I cannot express how incredibly and plainly stupid it is to be convinced that she is somehow racist. What would not be stupid would be to pretend that you believed she is racist in order to attempt to hurt her politically.

So, are ya' stupid or just playing games?

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.
 
Wrong. Laws are as often revised by judicial findings as by legislative action. It is the job of the courts to interpret laws in lights of our foundational principles and previous court findings, to ensure that legislative actions don't take us too far from our founding documents.
Interpretation is not revision. I remind you of Chief Justice Marshall's words in Marbury v Madison:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
No ruling changes the law. No ruling alters the law. Every ruling applies the law--no more and no less than this.

For instance, consider laws which are overturned in court because they are found to be unconstitutional...that IS, in fact, the role of the court, to serve as a check/balance on legislative action.
Again, that is not revising the law. Going back to Marbury v Madison
...the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.
The Court does not invalidate the law. The Constitution invalidates laws repugnant to it. The Court applies the Constitution to the law, and the law to the case, in that order of precedence.

We are not a pure democracy, we are a republic.
And this is an irrelevancy.
 
No, but every person brings something to the practice of law. She is bringing quite a lot.
All but an understanding of the proper role of the jurist, unfortunately.
 
Well, definitely, her position on guns is shi-ite.

I've read (probably right wing bull****), but.. I've read she's pretty keen on making law from the bench as well.. or rather.. She thinks that's part of her duties.


I don't think she was a very good choice imo... like other's, I'm okay with a dem, repub, alien, cow, anyone that will respect the constitution, and the word of law.. but.. I don't think she will.. and I think her nomination was more of a token.. "See, we got the first black president and now we've got the first hispanic supreme court judge... AND SHE'S A WOMAN!"
 
Interpretation is not revision.

So, when a court overturns a law and/or invalidates sections of it, that isn't, in practice, a REVISION of the law? Bollocks.

And this is an irrelevancy.

No, actually, it isn't. Because in a straight democracy, legislative action is defined by the majority, WITH NO CAPACITY for interpretation of those laws in light of founding documents.
 
I wonder how long it will take Corynn to kiss Rushes a** after this statement.

< I think it's terrible," Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told NPR's "All Things Considered" Thursday. "This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent.”>

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney - Blogs from CNN.com



Someone must have reminded him that his district is in Texas and Texas has a sizable Hispanic population, as well as when Sotomayor made this statement (“Hispanic women would make better judges than white men”) hardly qualifies as racism.

Someone please show me the country where Hispanics originated. :confused:
 
Last edited:
So, when a court overturns a law and/or invalidates sections of it, that isn't, in practice, a REVISION of the law? Bollocks.
No, it isn't a revision.

Remember, the court says what the law is, not what the law should be. The court can only declare a law to be in contravention to the Constitution. The invalidity of the law derives from the principle that, as explained in Marbury, a law repugnant to the Constitution is void.

Thus, a law which is deemed unconstitutional is not suddenly overturned and repealed--it is held to never have been in force. A legislature cannot pass a law that violates the constitution. Every aspect of the legislative process, including the oath legislators take when they assume office, precludes this (at the Federal level, at least, Congressmen and Senators swear an oath to uphold the Constitution). If a law were passed knowing it to be a violation of the Constitution, the legislators passing such a law would be in violation of their oath, would be acting outside their capacity as legislators, and thus the passage of such a law would be nullified.

Judges who seek to rewrite the law depart from their proper role of declaring what the law is, and venture into the legislative role of declaring what the law should be. Judges who do that need to be impeached and removed from the bench, not elevated to the Supreme Court.

No, actually, it isn't. Because in a straight democracy, legislative action is defined by the majority, WITH NO CAPACITY for interpretation of those laws in light of founding documents.
Nor is there inherently such capacity in a Republic.
 
Last edited:
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).
So, you would rather be a latina woman than a white male, I take it, because latina women have it, ummm, so good. Whatever, if you believe that you would rather be that, then you are delusional.

In any case, arguing about whether they actually are oppressed is beside the point. The point is that she perceives them as both oppressed and views that oppression as an opportunity to gain wisdom. All you are accomplishing by arguing that they're not oppressed is depriving her of her claim to wisdom, not establishing that she is racist.



What you say is even worse, being racist and playing the victim card all in one shot.
So, stating that one has been oppressed due to racism and chauvinism and that one has gained wisdom thereby is racist? And how is it 'playing a victim'? Can you arrange the matter into a step by step formally logical argument so that I can follow your reasoning... I must be too dense to see it on my own.
 
Last edited:
Oppressed groups of people have opportunities to gain wisdom that other groups are not presented with. It's as simple as that.
 
Back
Top Bottom