• 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!

Is Sotomayor a Political choice...

Is Sotomayor a Political choice?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 92.0%
  • No

    Votes: 2 8.0%

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
On nominating someone based on race or gender, none other than the cons light from the heavens...

Ronald Reagan said during the 1980 presidential campaign

I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can find

Reagan also pledged to appoint women to lower federal courts "in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench."





How about a little empathy...

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?
[...]
ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
[...]
Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.
[...]
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."
[...]
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.


Hmmmm...no outrage over a white conservative male's 'life's journey'..but no surprise.



Or a few imperfect decisions that had to be reversed...


In a well-known 1991 case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Alito wrote a sole dissent supporting a state requirement that women inform their husbands before being permitted to obtain an abortion; the Supreme Court later rejected his view.

In 2000, Alito ruled that Congress could not penalize state governments for failing to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act; in 2003, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote (including Chief Judge Rehnquist) rejected that conclusion, and ruled that states could be penalized.

In a 2004 death penalty case which Alito decided -- Rompilla v. Horn --Alito rejected the defendant's argument that his attorney's had failed to do conduct an adequate investigation to prepare for his sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court reversed Alito's decision, ruling that the defense attorney's failure to even review evidence they knew the prosecution was going to introduce at sentencing violated the Sixth Amendment.
 
It's not supposed to be.

It's supposed to be a panel of the most profound jurists the nation can produce to interpret the laws in terms of the Constitution as the people who wrote that Constitution intended for it to be applied.

"Diversity" isn't a job requirement.

You're right, it's not. My point is that whining about a president appointing someone other than a white male (when presidents often DO appoint white males) is silly. If white males were underrepresented on the courts and there was an unwritten rule that presidents always must appoint someone other than white males, then you might have a point. But even in a completely color-blind, gender-blind society, you should expect someone other than a white male to be appointed from time to time.
 
You're right, it's not. My point is that whining about a president appointing someone other than a white male (when presidents often DO appoint white males) is silly. If white males were underrepresented on the courts and there was an unwritten rule that presidents always must appoint someone other than white males, then you might have a point. But even in a completely color-blind, gender-blind society, you should expect someone other than a white male to be appointed from time to time.
If we were talking about the Latina equivalent of Antonin Scalia or John Roberts, you'd have a point.

The biggest problem with the appointment is that she's the Latina equivalent of David Souter, and that even Dear Leader admits that her principal credential is that she is the Latina equivalent of David Souter.

Nothing wrong with non-white males, or even non-white non-males on the Supreme Court. There's a lot wrong with nondescripts on the Supreme Court whose justification for being there is that they are non-white non-males.
 
If we were talking about the Latina equivalent of Antonin Scalia or John Roberts, you'd have a point.

Intellectual superstars are hard to come by...even on the Supreme Court. Let's not forget that there are OTHER justices on the Supreme Court, none of whom can probably match John Roberts in terms of sheer brainpower.

celticlord said:
The biggest problem with the appointment is that she's the Latina equivalent of David Souter, and that even Dear Leader admits that her principal credential is that she is the Latina equivalent of David Souter.

If I'm not mistaken, David Souter was indeed a Supreme Court Justice. His term was adequate enough, if somewhat forgettable. Not every SCOTUS pick ends up in the history books.

celticlord said:
Nothing wrong with non-white males, or even non-white non-males on the Supreme Court. There's a lot wrong with nondescripts on the Supreme Court whose justification for being there is that they are non-white non-males.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that she is not the most outstanding or intellectual choice that Obama could have made. However, regardless what one thinks about her personal characteristics, she's hardly "nondescript." Her resume is quite impressive...moreso than most other justices at the time of their nomination. Saying that she was picked only because she's Latina is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Dear Leader's own words:
Short version: she's a latina and race/gender matter more than knowing the law.

Because her "life's journey" wouldn't make a damn bit of difference any other way.

There is absolutely nothing in there about race or gender. You are amplifying it.
"Life's journey" could mean several things.
 
Watch the entire video.​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNBgtV5PkX4]YouTube - Conservatives Begin Calling Sotomayor A Racist[/ame]
 
Last edited:
There is absolutely nothing in there about race or gender. You are amplifying it.
"Life's journey" could mean several things.
And every thing it could mean has not a damn thing to do with the construction of the law. One might just as well argue that she's qualified to be on the Supreme Court because she's a Yankees fan (actually, this alone should be a disqualification...now if she were a Red Sox fan that would be a different matter altogether :mrgreen:)
 
With Democrats controlling the Senate 59 to 40, derailing the nomination will be hard, barring an unexpected revelation.

"A liberal is leaving, and a liberal will take that place. Now when a conservative justice steps down under Obama’s watch, that will be political Armageddon"...Charlie Cook
 
Sotomayor is an obvious bigot who is not worthy of being a member of the SCOTUS.

She needs to be denied and sent back to her current practice of denying justice to those who have been victims of reverse discrimination.
 
Where's the evidence that says the President picked Sotomayor because of race and gender?

Just because you think she was not the best doesn't disqualify the idea. Hell there's always a better candidate for President in many people's eyes, but we get what we get, and people are not killing themselves over it.

that everyone on his short list was a woman including two with laughable credentials is proof enough
 
You're right, it's not. My point is that whining about a president appointing someone other than a white male (when presidents often DO appoint white males) is silly. If white males were underrepresented on the courts and there was an unwritten rule that presidents always must appoint someone other than white males, then you might have a point. But even in a completely color-blind, gender-blind society, you should expect someone other than a white male to be appointed from time to time.

The point is that The Messiah choose his nominee first because she was a she and because she was hispanic, and third because she was a judge of pronounced unconstitutional bent.
 
With Democrats controlling the Senate 59 to 40, derailing the nomination will be hard, barring an unexpected revelation.

"A liberal is leaving, and a liberal will take that place. Now when a conservative justice steps down under Obama’s watch, that will be political Armageddon"...Charlie Cook

Nobody expects the nomination to be derailed (well, maybe a few naifs), but the project is now to make sure everyone knows what's in the package, a bigoted liberal, which is, naturally, a redundant statement.
 
I can just see her getting into Scalia's fat face over... oh say... closing down a recount vote to ensure that the Repub won. I'm not crazy about a few of her decisions but, she should add a good dash of spunk to SCOTUS. Should be good for some good stories. :cool:
 
I can just see her getting into Scalia's fat face over... oh say... closing down a recount vote to ensure that the Repub won. I'm not crazy about a few of her decisions but, she should add a good dash of spunk to SCOTUS. Should be good for some good stories. :cool:

Yeah, I could imagine that too.

Good thing Scalia never did any such thing.
 
Nobody expects the nomination to be derailed (well, maybe a few naifs), but the project is now to make sure everyone knows what's in the package, a bigoted liberal, which is, naturally, a redundant statement.
How is that anything but another RNC maneuver to waste time and money?
 
I can just see her getting into Scalia's fat face over... oh say... closing down a recount vote to ensure that the Repub won. I'm not crazy about a few of her decisions but, she should add a good dash of spunk to SCOTUS. Should be good for some good stories. :cool:

Scalia's fat face?

060327_scalia_vmed_5p.widec.jpg


v.

amd_sonia_sotomayor.jpg


I think it's a tie.
 
Scalia's fat face?

060327_scalia_vmed_5p.widec.jpg


v.

amd_sonia_sotomayor.jpg


I think it's a tie.
Fat or not, she would be scary if she got up in your face. She is ugly enough to scare the crap out of a turd. ;)


.
 
Back
Top Bottom