Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2009 10:54:40 GMT -5
PirateVB--you know for a moment I actually thought you were playing it straight. Nicely done.
Sotomayor is also the judge who ended the baseball strike. Though the owners hated it, both sides in the end (much later for the owners reps) agreed that she'd applied sound legal reasoning to her decision.
It's embarassing to be a Republican right now--every time any non-white person is nominated/gets a job, you get all the kooky comments about race, etc that come up. It's like watching Henry Gibson:
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 27, 2009 11:01:53 GMT -5
I don't remember The Blues Brothers as being in Italian. That was daring.
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 27, 2009 11:15:17 GMT -5
While I'm waiting for nittany to get back to me, a short film about real issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2009 11:26:10 GMT -5
Schaden--I don't speak Italian, but I could recite that entire movie from heart.
Really the difference here is that we aren't talking Illinois Nazis, we're talking national level here.
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 27, 2009 12:15:54 GMT -5
This is what Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, Buchanan, Carlson are calling racist remarks. Sometimes you just have to laugh... Emphasis is mine. "In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice 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. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, 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.Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown. However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see." Context is everything. I don't know if she's qualified or not, but the BS below is exactly that. Pure BS. Yep, it's just as bad on the right and on the left. ARE YOU FRICKIN SERIOUS??
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 27, 2009 12:45:26 GMT -5
any Body WITH A BRAIN knows that abortion and gay rights are driving this selection. I will point out that Judge Sotomayor has sided with the anti-abortion side in 100% of her decisions regarding abortion cases. I only know about the one where she said the Federal Government had the right to not pay for abortions if it didn't want to. Were there more?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 27, 2009 12:51:10 GMT -5
Keep in mind which judge she will be replacing: David Souter. The judge that was nominated by a Republican president and was expected to be part of the conservative block on the bench. But instead, he followed the general historical trend of Supreme court judges who surprise everyone once they are placed into a position where they don't have to please anyone except their own conscience.
If any of you think you know how Sotomayor is going to vote on any particular issue, I expect you are deluding yourself. All that I have seen here is people who assume that just because Obama has nominated her that she is bound to be whatever they fear.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on May 27, 2009 13:28:56 GMT -5
Keep in mind which judge she will be replacing: David Souter. The judge that was nominated by a Republican president and was expected to be part of the conservative block on the bench. But instead, he followed the general historical trend of Supreme court judges who surprise everyone once they are placed into a position where they don't have to please anyone except their own conscience. After the Bork debacle I guess they were hoping to get a stealth conservative candidate without enough background to mount a strong fight by potential opponents. Well - he was also a stealth candidate to the conservatives who pushed for his nomination.
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on May 27, 2009 13:56:27 GMT -5
I will point out that Judge Sotomayor has sided with the anti-abortion side in 100% of her decisions regarding abortion cases. I only know about the one where she said the Federal Government had the right to not pay for abortions if it didn't want to. Were there more? She also supported free speech rights for anti-abortion protesters in another case. Catholics and Latinos have traditionally been anti-abortion in general, so I don't understand the basis for the right's false claims against her regarding the abortion issue.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on May 27, 2009 14:42:39 GMT -5
I heard a Presidential comment about appointing a Supreme court Justice..I think it was TRUMAN who said" I appointed and lost a friend for life"
Its not that she isnt qualified...
Its why she was nominated..
Being... a WOMAN...? What if there were 5 black or Mexican males who were better? being A Latino? as IF ALL Mexicans CARE ABOUT PR ?
BEING LIBERAL ?
Only if she acts like she spoke about the appeals court.
NO WHITE MALE ON THE PLANET WOULD EVER BE CONFIRMED IF THEY SAID THAT.
Now go trash our TV people...radio..
YOU know the points they raise ARE VALID.
You wont even acknowledge the OTHER SIDE..
which is more DANGEROUS THAN BEING STUPID AS SHEEP.
|
|
|
Post by soothsayer on May 27, 2009 14:55:13 GMT -5
Did you read the frickin quote, Bill? She said NOTHING evenly remotely close to what those clowns are claiming she said. Show me where what she said was racist or bigoted.
YOU don't like her because she's a woman and latina, and you hide YOUR bigotry behind this "she's only been nominated because she's a woman and a latina" BS. You're no better than Rush: bigoted through and through. Your brand of conservatism is all about keeping people in their place, not about what's fair or just.
But I keep forgetting, you belong to the old white male party. The only people who count.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on May 27, 2009 14:56:57 GMT -5
You don't suppose that George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas because of his skin color? It sure as heck wasn't because he was the most distinguished candidate for the job. Many considered him to be the least qualified member of the Supreme Court at his nomination.
Or the second Bush nominating Harriet Miers? Or Alberto Gonzales to the Texas Supreme Court?
Strangely enough the talk I hear among Mexican-Americans is that they do consider Sotamayor to be one of their own. Living in California, people of Mexican, Puerto-Rican, and other Latino ancestry do find a common bond.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on May 27, 2009 15:36:25 GMT -5
Many considered him to be the least qualified member of the Supreme Court at his nomination. Many would remove the qualifying clause to this day.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on May 27, 2009 15:43:25 GMT -5
I only know about the one where she said the Federal Government had the right to not pay for abortions if it didn't want to. Were there more? She also supported free speech rights for anti-abortion protesters in another case. Catholics and Latinos have traditionally been anti-abortion in general, so I don't understand the basis for the right's false claims against her regarding the abortion issue. Hey, I didn't say it was a large number, just that she had sided with the anti-abortion folks 100% of the time. 1 of 1 or 2 of 2 is still 100%. In reality there are few abortion cases tried except in the D. C. Circuit.
|
|
|
Post by Jack on May 27, 2009 23:05:37 GMT -5
but the BS below is exactly that. Pure BS. The Lycanthropes are howling? It's not a full moon. WTF?
|
|