• 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

celticlord

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
6,344
Reaction score
3,794
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
White House urged to address 'racist' charge - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Some Democrats and political analysts are urging the White House to shift course and concede that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made an error when she suggested in 2001 that Hispanic women would make better judges than white men.
What caught my eye about this story is that the folks urging Sotomayor to take the comment back are members of Dear Leader's own party. His supposed friends and allies are practically admitting that Sotomayor's comment was fundamentally racist, even in context. There's no closing ranks rallying around Dear Leader or even Sotomayor, which I halfway expected.

So will Dear Leader follow the advice of others in his own party, or will he ignore everyone and let the story play on?
 
Even from a strictly political viewpoint, it's too early. Give it a couple days to get the real story out, and see if people outside the rabid right are upset about the comment.
 
Even from a strictly political viewpoint, it's too early. Give it a couple days to get the real story out, and see if people outside the rabid right are upset about the comment.

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.
 
If she is able to uphold the Constitution in a manner that is expected of the Judicial System (ye know, with Justice and such), then I could not careless about this "Racist Charge".
 
If she is able to uphold the Constitution in a manner that is expected of the Judicial System (ye know, with Justice and such), then I could not careless about this "Racist Charge".

I think the racist charge needs to be addressed and put aside before she is given an opportunity to allow any supposed racism to express itself from the bench of the highest court. So yeah...you're putting the cart before the horse.
 
After looking at both sides of the issue (along with some middle lines) I have to say I don't think she is the best choice for the Supreme Court.

I don't think she meant her comments to come off as racist, however, it is clear she has caused division like it or not as well as some of her judicial decisions are questionable. The honorable thing for her to do is step down as nominee or at worst Obama should withdraw her name as his pick and move on to someone else.

I don't support her as the nominee.
 
I think the racist charge needs to be addressed and put aside before she is given an opportunity to allow any supposed racism to express itself from the bench of the highest court. So yeah...you're putting the cart before the horse.

I always put the cart before the horse.
I don't trust the horse. They're not very tame.
 
White House urged to address 'racist' charge - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

What caught my eye about this story is that the folks urging Sotomayor to take the comment back are members of Dear Leader's own party. His supposed friends and allies are practically admitting that Sotomayor's comment was fundamentally racist, even in context. There's no closing ranks rallying around Dear Leader or even Sotomayor, which I halfway expected.

So will Dear Leader follow the advice of others in his own party, or will he ignore everyone and let the story play on?

As emotionally tempted as I am to be against her simply for that comment alone, has anyone found a comprehensive look at her judging decisions?
 
After looking at both sides of the issue (along with some middle lines) I have to say I don't think she is the best choice for the Supreme Court.

I don't think she meant her comments to come off as racist, however, it is clear she has caused division like it or not as well as some of her judicial decisions are questionable. The honorable thing for her to do is step down as nominee or at worst Obama should withdraw her name as his pick and move on to someone else.

I don't support her as the nominee.

She didn't pay her taxes?
 
I always put the cart before the horse.
I don't trust the horse. They're not very tame.

The cart is powered by a bound earth elemental anyway. The horse is there for show and meat.
 
As emotionally tempted as I am to be against her simply for that comment alone, has anyone found a comprehensive look at her judging decisions?

Good point, that could be kinda important.
 
The cart is powered by a bound earth elemental anyway. The horse is there for show and meat.

haha touche

when I become capt of the starship Enterprise you should be my 2nd.
 
I am surprised that shehas not been attacked yet for not being married !!! Or has someone made her Proposition # 9 ?
 
After looking at both sides of the issue (along with some middle lines) I have to say I don't think she is the best choice for the Supreme Court.

I don't think she meant her comments to come off as racist, however, it is clear she has caused division like it or not as well as some of her judicial decisions are questionable. The honorable thing for her to do is step down as nominee or at worst Obama should withdraw her name as his pick and move on to someone else.

I don't support her as the nominee.

You do not think that if people have all the information available about the comments, they will still think they are racist? So far all most people has heard is a soundbite. It's kinda like the yearbook quote, where most people only know it is a quote from a socialist, since her opponents did not mention what the quote actually was. Soon as people here the quote, they have to admit it is entirely noncontroversial.

What court cases has she ruled on that you disagree with, and why?
 
I am surprised that shehas not been attacked yet for not being married !!! Or has someone made her Proposition # 9 ?

As a Conservative I don't really care if a SCOTUS Justice is married.

I mean, I might care somewhat...maybe....if we got down into the nitty gritty...but in general I want to see their ruling history.
 
As emotionally tempted as I am to be against her simply for that comment alone, has anyone found a comprehensive look at her judging decisions?
The Case Against Sotomayor

It is most assuredly not a comprehensive look at her record, but Rosen does offer up a few links exploring some of the cases she has decided. Not comprehensive, merely what I've seen thus far.
 
Key cases reveal few clues - Yahoo! News

Sotomayor is proving to be an even more fitting replacement for Souter than she first appeared--Souter was himself a stealth nominee when appointed to the Court, and Sotomayor apparently is equally stealthy.

However, a couple cases do appear to be potential problems for her.

One is the Ricci v DeStefano reverse discrimination case that she dismissed with a single paragraph summary opinion. That scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month, with a ruling likely to be issued before hearings on her nomination begin.

The other is the per curiam opinion Maloney v Cuomo issued in January of this year, which disregarded the Supreme Court ruling on the Washington, D.C., handgun ban to apply a much older (1886) ruling on the applicability of the 2nd Amendment to the states. As the 9th Circuit arrived at a different interpretation in Nordyke v King last month, there is a good chance this matter will also find its way to the Supreme Court.

This article is not much more comprehensive than the Rosen piece I last posted, but it does provide a bit more analysis.
 
If she is able to uphold the Constitution in a manner that is expected of the Judicial System (ye know, with Justice and such), then I could not careless about this "Racist Charge".

The problem is that she did the opposite.

She's a racist and is not fit to sit on the SCOTUS.
 
Even from a strictly political viewpoint, it's too early. Give it a couple days to get the real story out, and see if people outside the rabid right are upset about the comment.

Jerk of the knee alert!

I see you failed to read the initial post.
It's his own party questioning this.

.
 
Jerk of the knee alert!

I see you failed to read the initial post.
It's his own party that's questioning this.

.

I know. That changes nothing of what I posted. Let me be a little clear. Right now, the far right non elected party leaders, the R(ush)N(ewt)C(oulter) are doing everything to smear Sotomayer. As the counter information is not getting as rapidly disseminated, and in the battle of the soundbites the RNC is at an early lead, a couple democrats are worrried. I am saying it's too early to be really worried, let's get some real information out to counter the RNC and see what happens.
 
I know. That changes nothing of what I posted. Let me be a little clear. Right now, the far right non elected party leaders, the R(ush)N(ewt)C(oulter) are doing everything to smear Sotomayer. As the counter information is not getting as rapidly disseminated, and in the battle of the soundbites the RNC is at an early lead, a couple democrats are worrried. I am saying it's too early to be really worried, let's get some real information out to counter the RNC and see what happens.

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?
 
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 would recommend reading a bit of my postings, especially on this issue, before you call me a "left wing bot".
 
White House urged to address 'racist' charge - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

What caught my eye about this story is that the folks urging Sotomayor to take the comment back are members of Dear Leader's own party. His supposed friends and allies are practically admitting that Sotomayor's comment was fundamentally racist, even in context. There's no closing ranks rallying around Dear Leader or even Sotomayor, which I halfway expected.

So will Dear Leader follow the advice of others in his own party, or will he ignore everyone and let the story play on?

W O W......! What more can we ask for from this one,..."Sotamayor"?
 
I know. That changes nothing of what I posted. Let me be a little clear. Right now, the far right non elected party leaders, the R(ush)N(ewt)C(oulter) are doing everything to smear Sotomayer. As the counter information is not getting as rapidly disseminated, and in the battle of the soundbites the RNC is at an early lead, a couple democrats are worrried. I am saying it's too early to be really worried, let's get some real information out to counter the RNC and see what happens.
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.

What is interesting is the less than vigorous defense she's getting from Dear Leader's team, as well as the rest of the lunatic left. Being female and Hispanic, and thus a presumably "historic" appointment to the Supreme Court bench, aren't they supposed to be fawning all over her minority-ness? That is the sort of hypocritical, prejudicial, we-say-we're-not-racist-but-race-is-all-we-can-see view they have of the world.

So what's wrong with her? Salsa not spicy enough?
 
Back
Top Bottom