• 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!

Senate confirms Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Senate on Thursday confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination by a 68-31 vote, making her the first Hispanic on the high court.

Sotomayor's confirmation also makes the 55-year-old federal appeals court judge the 111th person to sit on the Supreme Court, and the third female justice.

Nine Republicans joined a unanimous Democratic caucus in supporting her nomination.
Senate confirms Sotomayor for Supreme Court - CNN.com

I personally don't have a problem with this confirmation. I also didn't have a problem with Roberts and only had a problem with the manner in which Alito was appointed.

What are your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I do. I don't think racists belong on SCOTUS.
I keep hearing people mention this but have yet to see proof of this racism other then out of context statements that can vaguely be interpreted as racist.. Have anything other then out of context statements to back the racism charge?
 
I keep hearing people mention this but have yet to see proof of this racism other then out of context statements that can vaguely be interpreted as racist.. Have anything other then out of context statements to back the racism charge?





What context was saying a latina was better than whitey at judging taken out of?
 
Congratulations to her?
 
Last edited:
What context was saying a latina was better than whitey at judging taken out of?

Granted it was worded poorly on her part but it's obvious she is saying that individuals from differing backgrounds will come to different conclusions based on their experiences and education throughout life.

This isn't limited to her racial segregation though. Two white males could also come to varying conclusions given their differing life experiences.
 
Granted it was worded poorly on her part but it's obvious she is saying that individuals from differing backgrounds will come to different conclusions based on their experiences and education throughout life.

This isn't limited to her racial segregation though. Two white males could also come to varying conclusions given their differing life experiences.



hmm, I take the statements, then see what she did with the firefighter case, and draw a different conclusion. I hope I am wrong.
 
Whew! At least we have her to protect us from the all the stupid white men.
 
Bear in mind, that if a Caucasian Republican referred to a Democrat of African extraction as "colored" (which I've always found to be an innocuous term,) he'd be branded as a Racist for life.

That said I don't believe that Sotomayor is malicious. I'm far from convinced that she is terribly bright either.

While I don't really want to see anyone with her philosophy anywhere near any bench, I must bow to the law, which gives Obama the right to appoint who he will to the courts, and sets a high threshold for Senatorial opposition.

Too bad the Dems don't remember this when we are in power.
 
Bear in mind, that if a Caucasian Republican referred to a Democrat of African extraction as "colored" (which I've always found to be an innocuous term,) he'd be branded as a Racist for life.

Of course he would of. Racism is only alive at the state it is due to groups like the NAACP keeping it so.
 
hmm, I take the statements, then see what she did with the firefighter case, and draw a different conclusion. I hope I am wrong.

You mean the firefighter case where she went with established case law and the supreme court overruled what lower courts already confirmed?
 
Congrats to Sotomayor.....
 
hmm, I take the statements, then see what she did with the firefighter case, and draw a different conclusion. I hope I am wrong.

You do realize that at the time of her ruling, this was the precedent? Hello! Knock knock..she followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court. I thought you people did not like "Activist Judges". Oh wait, forgot that Activist Judge is only a judge who does not rule in your favor. On a roll today...this is another FAIL. Congrats.
 
I do. I don't think racists belong on SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS is no place for race based politics. Judges interpret the law, not legislate. I'm proud that there were plenty of people that voted against her racist butt. Those are real Americans.
 
You do realize that at the time of her ruling, this was the precedent? Hello! Knock knock..she followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court. I thought you people did not like "Activist Judges". Oh wait, forgot that Activist Judge is only a judge who does not rule in your favor. On a roll today...this is another FAIL. Congrats.


I'm not interested in precedent. I'm interested in what's right and what's wrong. Her decision in the firefighter case was, wrong.
 
I'm not interested in precedent. I'm interested in what's right and what's wrong. Her decision in the firefighter case was, wrong.

Ah HA, so you want an Activist Judge who will disregard the law, and simply rule on how they see fit.

Hypocrite Alert - * - Hypocrite Alert - * - Hypocrite Alert
 
The SCOTUS is no place for race based politics. Judges interpret the law, not legislate. I'm proud that there were plenty of people that voted against her racist butt. Those are real Americans.

It will be intereting too see just how many of those who voted against her still have a job after the next election cycle.

I guessing not very many...
 
It will be intereting too see just how many of those who voted against her still have a job after the next election cycle.

I guessing not very many...

Well Republican favorably has been sinking with Latino voters ever since she was nominated. I have no doubt that in 2010 and 2012 this will get a lot of play on Hispanic radio, TV, and papers. Already they have Tom Tancredo giving them a really bad image with Hispanics.

You what I love is seeing the projections that even Texas will be a blue state soon.
 
You what I love is seeing the projections that even Texas will be a blue state soon.

Do you remember Ann Richards? One of the most powerful, charismatic and intelligent politicians ever.
 
This isn't limited to her racial segregation though. Two white males could also come to varying conclusions given their differing life experiences.
Yet she compared Latina women with white males specifically. If she really had no intention of mentioning race why would she mention it at all?
 
Do you remember Ann Richards? One of the most powerful, charismatic and intelligent politicians ever.

Yeah and remember what George Bush did to her made up lies so he could win the governorship
 
Yet she compared Latina women with white males specifically. If she really had no intention of mentioning race why would she mention it at all?

Obviously you didn't read the whole speech tell me what kind of racial and sexual discrimination is prevalent among white males in our society?
 
Obviously you didn't read the whole speech tell me what kind of racial and sexual discrimination is prevalent among white males in our society?

Don't you know that Latina woman have had their boot to the throat of white males for decades?
 
Psssst . . . precedent, contrary to incorrect opinion, is not law.

Judicial Restraint: Judge Sotomayor and Ricci

The federal district court that first considered Mr. Ricci’s claims exhaustively reviewed the facts and allegations and determined that Ricci’s lawsuit was foreclosed by settled law. The racially disparate results of the test far exceeded the statistical cut-off indicating that a Title VII violation had occurred, and the district court found that when the City decided not to use the results of the promotion exam, it was trying to comply with Title VII’s prohibition on the use of employment tests that have such a disparate racial impact. Rather than discriminating against the white test-takers, the City was simply trying to find a promotion test that would be fair to all applicants as required by federal law. The court held that this attempt to ensure a fair promotion process and comply with Title VII was not equivalent to discrimination and was not intentional discrimination against the white plaintiffs in violation of equal protection.

On appeal in the Second Circuit, a three-judge panel, including Judge Sotomayor, unanimously agreed with the district court. In a brief order, later published, the panel affirmed the dismissal of Ricci’s case “for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below.” The judges expressly stated that “[w]e are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration,” noting that Mr. Ricci is dyslexic and had “made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated.” But no matter how sympathetic Mr. Ricci’s claims, “it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim.” However heartless the City’s refusal to act on the exam results may have seemed to the plaintiffs and their supporters, New Haven was “simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact” and its actions were protected by law. In other words, the case wasn’t about how sympathetic Mr. Ricci was—it was about the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom