RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


BitaTruble -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 12:07:50 PM)

quote:

As a result, one could argue that this case law is as yet truly unsettled and because there was a Hispanic applicant involved in the Ricci v. DeStefano case currently before the SPCOUS, she may have voted in support of test invalidation to GET this case before the court and before she might be considered for it.


I just finished reading the case law for Ricci v DeStefano and, actually, the hispanic firefighter wasn't/isn't part of the suit. The case itself is fairly complex with a lot of ambiguity and I can see both sides of the issue. After reading the case law, I'm not surprised at the ruling, not sure it actually will be overturned and look forward to the hearings. I am hoping they carry it on C-Span given the new interest in Sotomayer and that it's available online so I can watch it. The lower court, as the unsigned opinion itself stated, was carefully thought out and the 7-6 final vote should point to the fact that it wasn't the slam dunk that some folks think it is or that Sotomayer made some sort of arbitrary ruling against the plaintiffs just because they were white.

I've read about 15 of Sotomayers opinions so far, fairly evenly distrubited between dissenting and majorty and with the exception of leaning in favor of discrimination of the disabled, she's appears, at this point (to me) to apply the law in a fair and just manner regardless of who it might piss off or satisfy. I like that about her.




popeye1250 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 12:12:44 PM)

Bita, "garnered from research?" Isn't that just reading, *other people's* opinions?
I had an Electrician in here a few months ago to diagnose and fix an electrical problem.He did it in about 10 minutes.
I'd say that he was a "Brilliant Electrical Technician". He probably wouldn't though, too modest.




KaineD -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 12:15:47 PM)

She's been on the federal courts for 17 years.  She graduated suda cum laude and phi beta kappa in Prinston.  She was the co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne prize, the highest honour Prinston awards to an undergraduate.  In Yale law school, she became the editor of the Yale law journal and the managing editor of the Yale studies in world public order.  For years she's been considered a moderate by those on both sides of the aisle.

In what way is Sotomayor not qualified?

Can Sanity prove, in any way shape or form, that she was chosen simply because she's latino and a woman?

Prove it.  Go.




KaineD -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 12:21:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

I do not know. I just follow the very transparent and obvious (behind the scenes) logic. Perhaps we will know for certain many years from now when the president's historical facts will be released and biographies will be written. My comment was not politically motivated; just an observation. It is your right to wish and imagine there was no better candidate. How do you know? For me "positive" wishful thinking is no virtue.



Your logic is twisted.

It's "positive wishful thinking" to take the opinion she wasn't chosen because of her race?  What?

You're the one here that's making pretty big assumptions.  And ironically, you're making assumptions based on her race and gender.  You are projecting your own prejudices onto other people.  "Oh, she MUST have been picked purely because of her race.  Affirmitive action.  And it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise.  Even though I can't provide any proof to back up my claim".

Weak sauce, man.  What a weak sauce argument you have.

Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the supreme court than than any justice in a hundred years.

Explain to me, step by step, how it is "obvious" that this is affirmitive action?




BitaTruble -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 12:38:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Bita, "garnered from research?" Isn't that just reading, *other people's* opinions?



I also read the actual case laws Popeye. What have you read or studied that formed your opinions on the subject?




philosophy -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 12:46:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

quote:

...how do you know? i've yet to see any argument that suggests she wasn't picked for any other reason other than competency.


I do not know. I just follow the very transparent and obvious (behind the scenes) logic. Perhaps we will know for certain many years from now when the president's historical facts will be released and biographies will be written. My comment was not politically motivated; just an observation. It is your right to wish and imagine there was no better candidate. How do you know? For me "positive" wishful thinking is no virtue.



.......ok, that's just possibly the weakest argument i've ever seen on these boards. You suggest her nomination is based on affirmative action, when called on it you just say there's no evidence to suggest it isn't affirmative action so it must be.
Utter tosh.
i'll tell you what just happened. You have a set of biases which you've just projected onto this woman. You have no an iota of evidence to back them up, so you're attempting to use that lack of evidence to justify your perception.
How about you lay out what you see as transparent and obvious logic to those of us who see no such thing? Or would that be a bit of a giveaway?




popeye1250 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 1:27:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Bita, "garnered from research?" Isn't that just reading, *other people's* opinions?



I also read the actual case laws Popeye. What have you read or studied that formed your opinions on the subject?


Bita, and who wrote the actual case laws? They didn't write themselves did they? (Ouuuu, some "mystery!")
And there's another problem with "brilliant" people, they become bored very easily especially doing the same thing over and over again.
Once you master something where's the challenge intellectually?
Well, looks like she has one strike against her now, she went to "YALE"! They accept "Texans" who were born in Connecticut with 90 i.q.'s and rich parents. This isn't good.




BitaTruble -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 1:57:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


Bita, and who wrote the actual case laws? They didn't write themselves did they? (Ouuuu, some "mystery!"


Academics (mostly law professors) and generally, if you actually read the case law, you can find the name of the individual/s in the lower right hand corner of the documentation. Are you going to answer my question or do you just want some civic lessons? Oh, I read court transcripts as well, but I couldn't tell you the name of the stenographer in any of them, so if that's your next question, save yourself (and me) some time and don't bother asking. [8|]

quote:

And there's another problem with "brilliant" people, they become bored very easily especially doing the same thing over and over again.


It doesn't apply since each case is quite different from every other case.

quote:

Once you master something where's the challenge intellectually?


Same answer as above.

quote:

Well, looks like she has one strike against her now, she went to "YALE"!


[8|] If you want to engage in serious debate on the vetting of Sotomayer, let me know.




popeye1250 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 3:56:05 PM)

Sorry, just my *opinion*.[:D]
"Serious?" You mean Bush's i.q. is higher than 90?




BitaTruble -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 4:57:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Sorry, just my *opinion*.[:D]


Okay, you're not going to answer my question. No harm, no foul. But I think you're a stinker, so there. [8D]
quote:

"Serious?" You mean Bush's i.q. is higher than 90?


I plead the 5th.

(Gawds, but I do love the Constitution!)




popeye1250 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 5:17:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Sorry, just my *opinion*.[:D]


Okay, you're not going to answer my question. No harm, no foul. But I think you're a stinker, so there. [8D]
quote:

"Serious?" You mean Bush's i.q. is higher than 90?


I plead the 5th.

(Gawds, but I do love the Constitution!)


Bita, if she'll take a pledge that she won't engage in "Judicial Activism" I don't see how *anyone* would have a problem with her. She'd be a shoe in!
Anything that limits government interfereance into our lives is a *good* thing!
And anything that gives "The People" more *control* over our government is a good thing too!
One thing that most Americans are against is judges attempting to, "legislate from the bench" and with good reason, *that's not their job.*
So if she'll take a pledge or sign a statement like that I have no problem with her.
After some of the nonsense that comes out of judges I'm of the opinion that all judges should be elected by The People anyway so they don't do themselves or the judiciary any favors byengagingin that type of behaviour.




Owner59 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 6:40:26 PM)

"Judicial Activism"

What is that code for,Pop?




Owner59 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 6:55:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I am amazed that no one has mentioned herĀ  Hispanic woman would make a better ruling than a white man comment
Had a white man made the coresponding statement his nomination would already be over.
It is blatantly racist and sexist


Yeah, that's a good point. She's going to have some explaining to do on that one. I'll be very interested to see how she deals with it. I don't think it's going to be enough to torpedo her confirmation, but she can expect a hammering.




This may help.

Her comments, spun into something racist/sexist,is just more con BS.




MarsBonfire -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 8:26:17 PM)

The reason the GOP fears "empathy" is because they've spent the last 25 years building support to keep big business at the top of the heap, and making sure those of us who actually work for them get screwed. They want to protect that legacy of fucking over the average American worker at every turn.




Sanity -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 8:45:44 PM)


From The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal:


quote:

The 'Empathy' Nominee


Is Sonia Sotomayor judically superior to 'a white male'?

In making Sonia Sotomayor his first nominee for the Supreme Court yesterday, President Obama appears to have found the ideal match for his view that personal experience and cultural identity are the better part of judicial wisdom.

This isn't a jurisprudence that the Founders would recognize, but it is the creative view that has dominated the law schools since the 1970s and from which both the President and Judge Sotomayor emerged. In the President's now-famous word, judging should be shaped by "empathy" as much or more than by reason. In this sense, Judge Sotomayor would be a thoroughly modern Justice, one for whom the law is a voyage of personal identity. "Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers," Mr. Obama said yesterday in introducing Ms. Sotomayor. "It is experience that can give a person a common touch of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of Justice we need on the Supreme Court."

In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," she declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

We quote at such length because, even more than her opinions, these words are a guide to Ms. Sotomayor's likely behavior on the High Court. She is a judge steeped in the legal school of identity politics. This is not the same as taking justifiable pride in being the first Puerto Rican-American nominated to the Court, as both she and the President did yesterday. Her personal and family stories are admirable. Italian-Americans also swelled at the achievement of Justice Antonin Scalia, as Jewish-Americans did at the nomination of Benjamin Cardozo.

But these men saw themselves as judges first and ethnic representatives second. Judge Sotomayor's belief is that a "Latina woman" is by definition a superior judge to a "white male" because she has had more "richness" in her struggle. The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the "richness" of her experience comes to believe it should be.

(Full article here).





ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 8:55:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I am amazed that no one has mentioned her  Hispanic woman would make a better ruling than a white man comment
Had a white man made the coresponding statement his nomination would already be over.
It is blatantly racist and sexist


Yeah, that's a good point. She's going to have some explaining to do on that one. I'll be very interested to see how she deals with it. I don't think it's going to be enough to torpedo her confirmation, but she can expect a hammering.




This may help.

Her comments, spun into something racist/sexist,is just more con BS.


It really doesn't, though. I'm sorry. That opinion piece just reads like left-wing spin to me.

The argument the writer is attempting to make is that the context of the  remark within the speech will show that it was really an innocuous statement, and that's an argument I'm open to accepting. In fact, it's the argument I'm expecting Sotomayor's supporters to make at some point.

But when they do make that argument, they're going to have to support it a lot better than this writer did, because he makes no attempt at all to show us the context. He only tells us that his interpetation of the remark, and the context within which it was made, is that it was an entirely innocent thing to say. He quotes other portions of the speech to support his opinion, but does not tell us where in the speech those remarks  - or the one in question - were made. So we have no way to judge the context for ourselves, we are asked simply to accept his opinion. Until i have a chance to read the speech myself, or hear her explanation, I am unwilling to do so.




popeye1250 -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 9:37:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

"Judicial Activism"

What is that code for,Pop?


Owner,  that's code for, "Legislating from the bench!"
A judge on tv tonight said that when he leaves his house in the morning he leaves all his personal feelings behind and "concentrates on the law."
Now that's how it should be done!




UntappdPotential -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/27/2009 9:41:01 PM)

Sounds like an Onion headline...




MmeGigs -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/28/2009 4:51:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
"Judicial Activism"

What is that code for,Pop?

Owner,  that's code for, "Legislating from the bench!"


From what I've seen of the "judicial activism" charge in use, it means "the judge didn't rule the way I think s/he should have". 




DomKen -> RE: Obama Picks A White Man for the Supreme Court! (5/28/2009 7:45:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Bita, if she'll take a pledge that she won't engage in "Judicial Activism" I don't see how *anyone* would have a problem with her. She'd be a shoe in!
Anything that limits government interfereance into our lives is a *good* thing!

That's what is so funny about the "judicial activism" code word. The cases most likely to be called "judicial activism" are Roe v Wade and Brown v Topeka Board of Education. In both cases the court struck down laws that interfered in peoples lives.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875